Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Birmingham Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered:—

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time,"—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 13) Bill [Lords],

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

ASTLEY AINSTIE INSTITUTION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Astley Ainslie Institution," presented by Mr. Adamson; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

RAILWAY STORES (ORDERS).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any figures and can state the amount expended during the previous 12 months by the Government of India on stores required for the India State railways; the percentage of these orders that went to British manufacturers and/or foreign firms; and will he give particulars?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): Railway stores purchased through the High Com-
missioner for India from 1st January, 1929, to date amount to £2,237,996, about 57 per cent. of which were from British manufacturers. Particulars are not available for purchases made by the Indian railway companies or stores of European origin bought in India.

Mr. DAY: Cannot something be done to try to influence greater purchases in this country?

Mr. BENN: I am glad to see purchasers coming to this country, but we are governed by a Resolution of the Legislative Assembly of 1921.

NEW DELHI (EXPENDITURE).

Major GRAHAM POLE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will inform the House of the total expenditure made out of Indian revenues to met the cost of erecting New Delhi; how this expenditure compares with the original estimated cost of the scheme; and what is the estimated cost of the work in connection with this scheme still to be completed?

Mr. BENN: The total expenditure up to the end of August last was 13 crores, 66 lakhs of rupees in round figures. The original sanctioned estimate was for nine crores and 17 lakhs of rupees in round figures. The estimated cost of the work remaining to be done is roughly one crore 19½ lakhs.

AGENT, SOUTH AFRICA.

Major POLE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India Whether it is the intention of the Government of India to appoint a temporary representative to act for the Indian representative in South Africa until Sir K. V. Reddi, who has been compelled to return to India on sick leave, has sufficiently recovered to resume his duties?

Mr. BENN: Mr. Baring, the Secretary to the Agent of the Government of India in South Africa, will discharge the Agent's duties for the present.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Major POLE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has now received replies from all the local governments with regard to the proposal to separate the judicial from the executive functions of the Indian civil servants; and whether His Majesty's
Government, in consultation with the Government of India, have arrived at any decision on this matter?

Mr. BENN: My predecessor decided, in consultation with the Government of India, that any attempt to arrive at conclusions on this matter must remain in abeyance pending the results of the Statutory Commission's inquiry, for reasons which are detailed in a reply to a question put in the Council of State on 11th September, 1928, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy. I see no reason to differ from this decision.

Major POLE: May we hope that, after the Statutory Commission has reported, this matter, which has been under consideration for about a century, will at last be dealt with?

Mr. BENN: Certainly, I hope it will be dealt with.

ARMY DEPARTMENTS (BRITISH OFFICERS' PENSIONS).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India what facts justify the difference in pensions granted to British executive officers of the Indian Army Departments who retired between 1st April, 1919, and 1st October, 1925, at a lower rate than that granted to those who retired before and after those dates, seeing that their conditions of service are claimed to have been identical; why these officers have been deprived of the Indian element to which those retiring before and after that date are recognised to be entitled; and whether, in view of the decision to allow this claim from 1925 onwards, he will take steps to fill the gap made in the pension scale of such officers between 1919 and 1925?

Mr. BENN: I am writing to the hon. and gallant Member on this matter, and as it is somewhat too involved to be disposed of within the compass of a Parliamentary reply, perhaps he will await my letter.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

ARMS TRAFFIC CONVENTION.

Mr. DAY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all the
arms producing Powers have now ratified the Arms Traffic Convention governing the private manufacture of arms which was passed by the Assembly of the League of Nations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I presume my hon. Friend is referring to the Convention signed at Geneva on 17th June, 1925, which concerns the control of the international traffic in arms and munitions of war. Up to now France and the Netherlands are the only arms producing countries of whose ratification we have received official notification. Austria's ratification is, however, imminent, and may even have been deposited by this time.

Mr. DAY: Has the British Consul in China lately made representations about arms getting into that country?

Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of that question.

BRITISH DIMEGATION.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any members of the British delegation to the last Assembly of the League of Nations are now employed at the Foreign Office; and, if so, in what capacity and at what salary?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The composition of the delegation to the 10th Assembly was announced to the House on 4th of July, 1929. Two members of the delegation, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, who represents His Majesty's Government on the Preparatory Disarmament Commission, and the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Noel Baker), my Parliamentary Private Secretary, are at present serving voluntarily in the Foreign Office.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Do we understand that Lord Cecil is attached in some way to the Government?

Mr. HENDERSON: Lord Cecil of Chelwood is serving in the Foreign Office in a voluntary capacity, and was appointed by His Majesty's Government to represent the Government on the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is he serving as an honorary member of the Government or as an honorary member of the Foreign Office staff?

Mr. HENDERSON: As an honorary member of the Foreign Office staff.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Has he access to all Government papers?

Mr. HENDERSON: Much will depend on what the hon. Member means by all papers.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I mean what I said.

Earl WINTERTON: What is Lord Cecil's status? Is he a civil servant, or is he there in a Ministerial capacity?

Mr. HENDERSON: He is a voluntary worker in the Foreign Office and represents His Majesty's Government on the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Will he answer for the Government in another place?

Mr. HENDERSON: Oh, no. He has not been appointed to answer for the Government in any place.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May I have an answer to my question? Has he access to all Foreign Office papers?

Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot do other than give the answer that I have already given. I do not know what the hon. Member means. If he means relevant papers, yes.

MEXICO (BONDHOLDERS).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will request His Majesty's Minister in Mexico to inquire whether the president elect of Mexico has made a statement, and, if so, its terms, with regard to the default of obligations towards holders of Mexican Government securities?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have observed in the Press a statement that the president-elect of Mexico referred, in the course of an interview at the end of last month with the representative of a foreign newspaper, to his plans with regard to the foreign indebtedness of Mexico. The remarks made by the president-elect are being reported by despatch from His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Mexico City. As soon as
they are received, I shall be happy to inform the hon. Member of the terms of the statement.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will put a question down later on.

Commander WILLIAMS: When is the right hon. Gentleman expecting to have the information—before we adjourn for Christmas or after?

Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot say when the despatch will arrive.

SPAIN AND AFRICA (TUNNEL).

Mr. ALLEN: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information regarding the Spanish proposal to construct a tunnel between Tarifa and the territory of the Tangier international zone?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Spanish Government have appointed a commission to study the possibility of constructing a tunnel between Spain and Africa, but so far as I am aware it has never been proposed that the African end of the tunnel should be within the international zone.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH RELATIONS.

Mr. SMITHERS: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to an article in the "Pravda," the official organ of the government in Russia, on the British coal industry, containing statements derogatory to His Majesty's Government, and to a booklet published by the Komintern in regard to Egypt, which is in parts offensive to King Fuad and hostile to Great Britain; and, in view of these publications, will he communicate with the Soviet Government and insist that Article 7 of the Protocol of 3rd October, 1929, and Article 16 of the Treaty of 8th August, 1924, are observed?

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement recently appearing in "Pravda," the official organ of the Russian Soviet Government, on the British coal industry, and stating that the next few months are to be spent in in-
creased agitation among the British miners and in preparation for the battle in April; and whether he proposes, in view of the undertaking recently given as to propaganda, to call the Soviet Government's attention to the matter?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have seen an article by L. Berg published in the "Pravda" of 4th December, dealing with the coal industry in this country. This article, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, is not such as to call for notice on the part of His Majesty's Government. As regards the reported publication of a pamphlet on Egypt, I have at present no information beyond what has appeared in the Press, and must, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion.

Sir K. WOOD: When the right hon. Gentleman sees serious statements like this appearing in an official organ, threatening trouble in the mining industry in the future, is he not going to take some action?

Mr. HAYCOCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay any attention to articles against Russia appearing in the "Daily Mail"?

Mr. SMITHERS: In view of the resumption of diplomatic relations, does the right hon. Gentleman think the statement that the British Government is a capitalist tout friendly?

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Soviet Ambassador has presented his credentials?

Mr. HENDERSON: I received the Soviet Ambassador informally this morning, but the formal presentation of his credentials has not yet taken place.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the reason for the delay in the formal presentation of his credentials?

Mr. HENDERSON: I should have thought that the hon. Member was aware that this is not a matter which rests with members of the Government.

Sir A. POWNALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman, who has apparently seen this gentleman unofficially, tell us what is the reason for the delay? There must be a reason.

Mr. HENDERSON: Perhaps I can satisfy the hon. Member by saying that the delay is not on his side, but on our side.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that this delay is due to the fact that the Dominions have not yet sanctioned his appointment?

Mr. HENDERSON: Oh, no.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the arrival in London of a diplomatic representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and whether such representative has signified agreement on behalf of his Government with the interpretation placed by, the British Government on the pledge with regard to propaganda contained in Article 16 of the Treaty of the 8th August, 1924, referred to in paragraph 7 of the Protocol of the 3rd October, 1929, especially as regards the activities of the Third International?

Mr. HENDERSON: The diplomatic representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics arrived in London on the 12th December. With regard to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I made to the hon. Member on the 3rd of December, and to previous replies on the same subject.

Sir W. DAVISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that pending the signing of the Memorandum referred to in the Protocol, the Soviet representative, or any representative of the Soviet Government, would be entitled to instigate propaganda, and is he assured that he is not doing so, pending the signing?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the answer that have just given.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is the Soviet Ambassador capable of transacting or allowed to transact any official business before he has presented his credentials?

Mr. HENDERSON: No. He is only in the position to hold an informal conversation such as we had this morning, and I am arranging as speedy as possible for the presentation of the credentials.

TRADING ORGANISATIONS.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, since the resumption of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government, any members of the staff of Arcos have been granted privileges not usually accorded to nationals of other countries?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No such privileges will be granted.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 19 and 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he has received any request from the Soviet Government for permission to establish branches of Arcos and other Soviet trading organisations in British Colonies;
(2) whether he has received any intimation from the Soviet Government as to its wishes in the way of establishing trading and purchasing organisations in their country; and, if so, can he state their nature?

Mr. HENDERSON: The answer to both questions is in the negative.

BRITISH CLAIMS.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the newly re-established diplomatic relations with Russia, he is prepared to urge the rights of English claimants upon the Soviet Government and press for a recognition and settlement of the debts due to them?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The subject of debts due to British claimants is included in the list of subjects for discussion with the Soviet Government.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is it posible for the right hon. Gentleman to have official communication with the new Ambassador before he has presented his credentials?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not think that that matter arises on this question.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I point out—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] May I ask—

Mr. SPEAKER: The matter really does not arise out of the question.

TIMBER (PRISON LABOUR).

Commander BELLAIRS: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the situation arising from the importation of Russian timber into this
country, whether he will obtain from the French and German Governments copies of the sworn affidavits of the French and German nationals who have passed through Helsingfors from the Soviet Russian detention camps as to their being forced to cut and load lumber and as to the prison labour employed on this work?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have no information on the statements contained in the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman act on the information that these nationals, both French and German, have made statements to the effect mentioned in the question to the Consuls at Helsingfors, and it is quite possible to obtain the sworn affidavits?

Mr. HENDERSON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman cares to see me and put up any suggestion, I will see how far it can be put into operation.

CHINA AND RUSSIA.

Sir K. WOOD: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is the present position in Manchuria; and whether the negotiations between the Chinese and Soviet Governments have yet been concluded?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: According to Press reports, an agreement has been reached locally on the immediate issue. I have no official confirmation as yet.

Sir K. WOOD: Has fighting ceased?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any increase in the staff of his Department since 1st July; and, if so, what is it?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The establishment of the Foreign Office has been increased since the date referred to in the hon. and gallant Member's question by the appointment of an additional Assistant Under-Secretary of State, a post for which Treasury sanction was obtained
by my predecessor in April last, and by the creation of one post of Principal Clerk.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is not the right hon. Gentleman going to do something to deal with the deficiency that arises through sending members of his office to the Dominions? There must be several vacancies waiting to be filled up.

Mr. HENDERSON: I did not know the hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted me to increase it. I will look into the matter.

AIR MINISTRY (APPOINTMENT).

Viscountess ASTOR: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why an advertisement was inserted in the daily Press on 12th July, 1929, for a junior translator (woman) for the Air Ministry; why permanent women civil servants were not given the opportunity of applying for the vacancy, seeing that numbers of them have the qualifications that were required; and if he will give an undertaking that in future permanent women civil servants shall be given the opportunity of applying for transfer to his Department when vacancies occur before the post is advertised in the daily Press?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): The advertisement referred to was in respect of a vacancy in an unestablished post for which the pay and conditions of service differ from those for permanent women civil servants. In view of the relative rates of pay and of the loss of pension rights involved in transfer from permanent to unestablished status, the post in question would hold no attractions for the permanent staff.

P-CLASS (REMOVAL EXPENSES).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 73.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of P-class ex-service clerks transferred on redundancy prior to 1st March, 1928, who were not allowed removal expenses on the scale laid down for that class in Treasury Circular of 21st March, 1928?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I regret that the information desired by
the hon. and gallant Member is not available and could not be obtained without a very large expense of time and labour which I do not think would be justified.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Mr. EVERARD: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many conscientious objectors in the Civil Service will benefit by the recent concessions regarding pensions and increment made by the Treasury; and what is the approximate cost of this concession?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The number of conscientious objectors in the Civil Service to whom the concessions apply is estimated at about 200. But I am obtaining actual figures from Departments concerned together with estimates of the cost involved for my reply to a similar question from the hon. Member for the Gillingham Division (Sir R. Gower) with a copy of which I will furnish the hon. Member in due course.

WOMEN (RESIGNATIONS).

Viscountess ASTOR: 75.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total numbers of women who resigned from the Civil Service on marriage during the years 1926, 1927 and 1928, showing the grades in which they were employed immediately prior to resignation, together with the total number of women employed in each grade?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as is available in reply to this question.

Following is the information:

The total number of established non-industrial women civil servants to whom marriage gratuity was paid in the calendar year 1928 was 1,550. Marriage gratuity is payable after six years' service. The average number of established non-industrial women civil servants in that year was 44,716. In the financial year 1926, 52 established shorthand typists and 80 established typists retired with marriage gratuities, and in the financial year 1927 87 and 77 respectively. The number of established shorthand typists on 1st April, 1928, was 1,917 and of established typists 1,723.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH NATIONALS.

Sir K. WOOD: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position in Nanking and Shanghai; what British warships and forces are now available for the protection of British nationals; and what defensive forces have been provided by America and other Powers?

Captain MACDONALD: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any further statement to make with regard to China?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: So far as my information goes, the forces opposed to the Nanking Government have been defeated near Canton, and have made no further progress on any of the other main lines of attack. The situation at Nanking and Shanghai appears to be quiet. The naval forces available for the protection of British nationals in case of need consist of five cruisers, one aircraft carrier, eight destroyers, five sloops, and 18 gunboats. The available military forces consist of three battalions at Hong Kong, two at Shanghai and two at Tientsin, with small detachments at Peking and Wei-hai-wei. Other foreign Powers have an aggregate naval strength in China waters which is approximately the same, and about 8,000 troops, mainly at Tientsin and Shanghai.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the women and children who took refuge on British warships have now been allowed to land again?

Mr. HENDERSON: I answered a question the other day in which I said that some of them had been brought to Shanghai.

Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether it is not a fact that this rising was caused by Soviet propaganda?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have no information as to that.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when he mentioned other Powers, he included Japan or not?

Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of that question.

Commander WILLIAMS: When the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact of foreign naval forces being equal to British, does he mean that the whole of the British Naval Forces in China are at least as great as the whole of the foreign Naval Forces put together, including Japan?

Mr. HENDERSON: I think I was dealing with a comparison of military forces.

PIRACY.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has made representations to the Chinese Government with regard to the increase of piracy along the Chinese coast; and whether he is taking any steps to ensure the safety of British commerce?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Representations have repeatedly been made to the Chinese authorities with regard to the increase in piracy along the China coast in recent years, and His Majesty's Minister has instructions to keep the matter before the Chinese Government with a view to their taking effective suppressive measures. There has not, so far as my information goes, been any deterioration in the situation in recent months. The problem of securing the safety of British commerce in this respect is one which is constantly in view. The hon. and gallant Member will have noticed that in the recent case of the Steamship "Haiching" two of His Majesty's ships were instrumental in saving the vessel.

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any communication from the Egyptian Government with regard to the proposed draft treaty submitted by the British Government; and what is the present position with regard to the said proposed treaty?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir, and I de not expect to receive any further communication on this subject until after the Egyptian elections and the restoration of the parliamentary régime.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement made by a member
of the Government in another place, that these proposals are not to be considered as a draft treaty but merely outline proposals?

Mr. HENDERSON: They never were intended as a draft treaty. They have not been initialed. They were merely proposals submitted to be negotiated subsequently by any Government elected by the Egyptian nation.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Were they not the extreme limit to which the Government would go?

Mr. HENDERSON: And I have not said anything inconsistent with that.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES (CREWE).

Mr. BOWEN: 26.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will cause regulations to be so amended that subsistence allowances shall be payable to men from Crewe and district who are absent from home for periods over five hours when attending such centres as Manchester or Liverpool for medical examination or treatment on the instruction of the Ministry?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): I fear that I could not advisedly recommend so large a departure from the existing Regulations, and one which would also affect the practice of other Departments, but I am looking further into the question.

APPEALS.

Mr. LONGDEN: 28.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will instruct area officers to grant the right of re-appeal for a renewal of pension, under the procedure for the correction of errors, where the ex-Service man claims to be suffering from deterioration following a final award?

Mr. ROBERTS: I would point out that it is open to any pensioner in receipt of a final award to apply for treatment for a condition due to war service. If, as a result of such treatment, the award is found to have been seriously erroneous as an assessment for permanent purposes, a further grant can be made.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 29.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many new claims and how many appeals against previous assessments for war pensions, made to his Department before 1st October, remain unsettled?

Mr. ROBERTS: The records of the Ministry would not, I fear, enable me to give the information required without a more laborious investigation than would be justified by the results.

SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT (ABOLITION).

Major COHEN: 30.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether instructions have yet been issued to local war pensions committees regarding the manner and the object of the investigations to be applied by such committees in regard to cases submitted to them by dissatisfied applicants in connection with claims outside the seven years' time limit?

Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, Sir. Such instructions have been issued.

Major COHEN: Will these committees meet more than once every two months?

Mr. ROBERTS: They will have power to deal with this matter by way of Sub-Committee in accordance with regulations, which will give them that power.

Major COHEN: 31.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will give the date from which pension will be payable in those cases of claims submitted outside the seven years' time limit and dealt with under the scheme recently announced by the Minister; and will the pension be payable from the date on which the claim is first submitted or from the date on which the Ministry obtains special sanction for payment from the Treasury?

Mr. ROBERTS: Payment will normally, as hitherto, be made as from the date of the application which is successfully established.

Major COHEN: 32.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, having regard to the fact that a large number of ex-service men have emigrated since the War, he will say what steps it is proposed to take to give publicity in the Dominions to the scheme announced last month regarding applications outside the seven years' time limit; what steps it is proposed to
take to enable claimants resident overseas to have their claims and complaints considered by a voluntary committee, similar to the war pensions committees in this country; and whether, in view of the fact that there are no Ministry of Pensions committees in the Dominions, he will consider the possibility of inviting the recognised ex-service organisations overseas to assist the Ministry in this connection?

Mr. ROBERTS: The necessary instructions are in preparation for circulation overseas. In regard to the last part of the question ex-service organisations already advise and assist ex-service men in regard to their applications. Apart from this, applicants will have the same opportunity as in this country of submitting evidence direct to the Ministry, through the local offices and agents of the Ministry.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, while he is prepared to issue these instructions that he is anxious to reconsider sympathetically any case, he will make it perfectly plain that the seven years' limit has not been abolished?

Mr. ROBERTS: I think that that is perfectly plain in so far as the repeal of the Statute goes, but in so far as the seven years' limit goes all cases can now be reconsidered.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is not that exactly the same procedure that was adopted by his predecessors?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer—

Mr. EVERARD: Is there any difference between the attitude the right hon. Gentleman has taken up and that of the late Minister of Pensions?

Mr. ROBERTS: I should be very glad to give an explanation to any hon. Member who cares to come to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give it now —"] An explanation in regard to general procedure cannot properly be given by way of question and answer.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is really lamentable for him to try to make this a party question?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION, BARCELONA.

Major GLYN: 33.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what arrangements were made to ensure that British productions should have adequate representation at the international exhibition at Barcelona; how has the present collection of exhibits been made; and have any official representations been made to his Department regarding the inadequate character of the British exhibit compared to that of other countries?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As regards the first and second parts of the question, the organisation of an exhibit of British productions at the international exhibition at Barcelona was undertaken by a company specially formed for the purpose, known as "The Barcelona Exhibition (British Section), Ltd." which collected exhibits from British manufacturers. As regards the last part no official representations have been made to my Department. I understand, however, that as in the case of most exhibitions there have been comments both of a satisfactory nature and otherwise regarding the exhibits.

Major GLYN: Does there not exist an exhibition Department, and why is it that when there is an international exhibition that Department cannot see that British exhibits are properly displayed?

Mr. GILLETT: There is an exhibits section of my Department, but I understand that it was decided that the Department should not be officially represented at this exhibition. It was left to this company to represent British trade so far as the exhibition was concerned.

Major GLYN: Is the hon. Member aware that many orders which would have come to this country have gone elsewhere, owing to the entire futility of the way in which we were represented?

Mr. GILLETT: I think it would be an advantage, and I have decided to appoint a Committee, consisting of some of the members of my Department and those representing business interests, to give advice to the Department as to the desirability of the Government taking part in any foreign exhibition, and of advising on the general question.

Mr. MILLS: May I ask whether the decision not to be represented was come to prior to the General Election, or since?

Mr. GILLETT: Prior.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise his personal responsibilities, rather than pass them on to a Committee?

Mr. GILLETT: I think I made it quite clear that it was only in an advisory capacity. It is obvious that the final decision must remain with the Government of the day.

IMPERIAL CUSTOMS UNION.

Captain MACDONALD: 34.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department in how many commercial treaties at present in force between Great Britain and foreign Powers there are clauses which would preclude the establishment of an imperial customs union?

Mr. GILLETT: None of the commercial treaties in force between this country and foreign Powers contains any such clause.

TARIFFS (TURKEY).

Mr. ALLEN: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is anticipated that the new Turkish tariff will adversely affect the importation of British goods into Turkey?

Mr. GILLETT: The general level of duties is higher under the new Turkish tariff, which came into force on 1st October, than under the former tariff. Many of the increases were admittedly imposed for protective purposes, and I fear it must be anticipated that some adverse effect on our trade with Turkey is inevitable.

Mr. ALLEN: Have the present Government any means of protecting British producers from the arbitrary raising of tariffs in other countries?

Mr. GILLETT: The hon. Member is aware that this new Turkish tariff is due to the fact that a former Convention lapsed, but at the present time we have a modus vivendi for the most-favourednation treatment of this country, and a new commercial treaty with Turkey is now being negotiated.

GEOLOGICAL MUSEUM, JERMYN STREET (SITE).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the proposals dealing with the site of the Geological Museum in Jermyn Street, Piccadilly, after the museum has been transferred to Exhibition Road; has any offer been received to hire or purchase the site; and will provision be made in any case to allow of the eventual widening of Jermyn Street?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): The site, being under the management of the Commissioners of Crown Lands, will be dealt with by them and will probably be let on building lease in accordance with their usual practice. They will not be in a position to entertain applications until it is known more definitely when the site will be available. The question of the widening of Jermyn Street is primarily one for the local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ROYAL VETERINARY COLLEGE (REPORT).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now make any statement regarding the Report on the Royal Veterinary College?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The Report is receiving my careful consideration. Discussions are proceeding with other Government Departments concerned, and with the governors of the college.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement before Christmas?

Mr. BUXTON: I should hardly think that will be possible.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an announcement as soon as possible in regard to this very important matter, because it is a national disgrace, and something ought to be done?

Mr. BUXTON: I realise that it is of very great importance, but there are several Departments to be consulted.

LAND DRAINAGE AND RECLAMATION.

Mr. SMITHERS: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the policy of the Government to undertake land
drainage 'and reclamation; if so, to what extent has this policy been carried out since the Government took office; and what is the extent and cost of the schemes, if any, already approved?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The Ministry is prepared to make grants towards the cost of carrying out approved schemes promoted by drainage authorities or county councils. Financial assistance is also available through the Unemployment Grants Committee. Since the present Government took office, 33 schemes have been approved for grants from the Ministry's funds, the total grants being estimated at £31,000, while 12 schemes are under consideration, the grants involved being estimated at £10,000. In addition, 12 schemes, have been approved or accepted in principle by the Unemployment Grants Committee, the total estimated cost being £577,000, and four other schemes, estimated to cost in all £183,000, are under consideration.

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these schemes were on the stocks before he came into office?

Mr. BUXTON: These represent new schemes, but there were several schemes in operation before.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many men it is estimated that these schemes will employ?

Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put down that question upon the Order Paper.

Mr. FRANK OWEN: Is it part of the right hon. Gentleman's policy to settle smallholders upon the land?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, during the present rainy season, he has taken or is taking any steps and, if so, of what nature to schedule flooded districts suitable to be dealt with under the promised Land Drainage Bill?

Mr. BUXTON: The Ministry has been engaged during the last 18 months in carrying out a survey in connection with the legislation recommended by the Royal Commission on land drainage. This survey is still proceeding and the recent floods have afforded additional information to the staff engaged thereon.

LIVE STOCK CLUBS BILL.

Mr. EVERARD: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government intend to assist the passage of the Live Stock Clubs Bill?

Mr. N. BUXTON: I regret that the Government cannot undertake to provide facilities for this Bill.

Mr. EVERARD: Are we to understand that the Government have no agricultural policy of their own and are not prepared to consider anything put forward from this side?

LAND POLICY.

Mr. SMITHERS: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is still the policy of the Government that land should come under public control?

Mr. BUXTON: Yes, Sir.

Mr. SMITHERS: What steps have the Government taken since they came into office to carry out this important Election pledge?

Viscountess ASTOR: What kind of land must we get ready to hand over?

Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask for an answer to my question?

Mr. BUXTON: I have answered the question upon the Order Paper. There is no present intention of introducing legislation, because the political situation forbids it.

Mr. F. OWEN: Should not the Minister of Agriculture be brought under some form of public control?

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

Mr. GRANVILLE: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the Government intends to introduce its agricultural proposals?

Mr. N. BUXTON: If the hon. Member refers to legislative proposals, the answer is that I propose to introduce a comprehensive Land Drainage Bill early in the new year. If he refers to administrative proposals, I would remind him that the Government has already announced, and in many cases set on foot, a considerable number of proposals of this character for the benefit of agriculture, including grants for field drainage and water supply schemes; assistance for the extension of county educational activities beyond the
limits set by the late Government; development of national institutions for agricultural education and research, for which and other purposes a sum of £500,000 has been paid into the Development Fund; the initiation of a farm management survey; more active administration of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924; the provision of an additional £20,000 for assistance by way of loan towards the erection of village halls; easier conditions for loans to cooperative enterprises; and the provision of £12,000 a year for the investigation of the organisation aspect of the agricultural marketing problem.

Mr. GRANVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing opinion in the House and in the country that the present Government, like the late Government, have no effective agricultural policy?

Captain MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing measures to regulate the water-logged state of the Ministry of Agriculture?

BARLEY.

Mr. WISE: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will include barley within the scope of the proposed scheme for a grain imports board with monopoly powers of import, but will limit the operations of the board to feeding barleys so as to stop the further import of barley required for brewing and distilling purposes?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The scheme referred to by my hon. Friend is being investigated by my Department. Pending the results of this investigation I am not in a position to give any undertaking?

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the fundamental importance to the country of this scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication when he will be in a position to announce whether or not the Government have adopted the hon. Member's scheme?

Mr. BUXTON: That question hardly arises on the question on the Paper. If the Noble Lord will put a question down, I will give him an answer.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that bread is more important than beer!

Mr. WISE: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total quantity of barley imported into this country during the last completed year; what amount of this, and what amount of home-produced barley, was used for malting purposes; and whether he has any figures showing to what extent the cost of production of beer would be increased if only home-produced barley were used?

Mr. BUXTON: The imports of barley into the United Kingdom during the 12 months ended November, 1929, amounted to 611,412 tons. On the average, imports furnish about 45 per cent, of the total supplies of barley available for consumption in this country apart from seed requirements. Statistics are not obtained as to the proportion of imports or of the home crop used for malting in any particular year, but in a report which will shortly be published by the Ministry on the Agricultural Output and the Food Supplies of Great Britain, it is estimated that "on the average slightly less than one-half of the total home crop of barley and approximately one-half of the net imports are malted." I am quite unable to estimate to what extent, if at all, the cost of production of beer would be increased if only home-produced barley was available.

Mr. WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to obtain these figures as to the effect on the price of beer?

Mr. BUXTON: It is very difficult, but I will inquire again.

Viscountess ASTOR: And will he always bear in mind the brewers' profits?

HOME PRODUCTION.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will examine the provisions for giving security to the producers of food contained in the American Farm Bill, with a view to rendering similar help to home production in Britain?

Mr. N. BUXTON: I have carefully studied the provisions of the United States "Agricultural Marketing Act" and am following with interest the activities of the Federal Farm Board set up under the Act. Apart from other considerations, agricultural conditions in this country do not sufficiently re-
semble those obtaining in the United States to call for legislation on the lines recently passed in that country. I am, however, at present examining various proposals designed to render more secure the position of producers of food in this country.

POTATO INDUSTRY.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 48.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the fact that an emergency committee has been appointed to deal with the crisis that has arisen in the potato industry; and whether his Department proposes to co-operate with this body especially with regard to the restriction or limitation of the importation of foreign potatoes?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am glad to provide such assistance and advice as may be in my power to any responsible organisation which is concerned to improve the marketing of any home agricultural produce. I am not, however, prepared to introduce legislation restricting or prohibiting the importation of articles of food.

Mr. GRANVILLE: As this is largely an experiment in marketing, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a grant for an experiment in this industry?

Mr. BUXTON: I do not think the Ministry have any legal powers to make a grant, but we have strongly recommended a scheme not only for grading, but for marketing which I hope will be adopted.

Mr. GRANVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a recommendation to the Empire Marketing Board to that effect?

Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider including potatoes in the investigation he is making into the stabilisation scheme put forward by hon. Members below the Gangway?

Mr. BUXTON: Yes, Sir.

NATIONAL MARK EGG SCHEME.

Mr. HURD: 49.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give any estimate
of the increase in monetary return to egg producers from the working of the national mark scheme?

Mr. N. BUXTON: It can be calculated that the difference between the monthly average prices for home-produced eggs at country markets in England and Wales from February to November, 1929, inclusive, and those ruling in the corresponding months of 1928 represents an increased value of, roughly, £1½ million spread over the total output. Various factors have no doubt contributed to this result, but I am satisfied that the national mark egg scheme has materially influenced the market in favour of the home producer.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an increasing movement to try and stop the success of this scheme for the national marking of eggs; and is his Department alive to the necessity of taking steps to protect a policy which has received his support?

Mr. BUXTON: It is not an increasing movement and it certainly will be defeated.

Mr. LEIF JONES: May I ask whether the success of the scheme is that it will raise prices to the home consumer to the extent of £1,500,000?

IMPORTED TURKEYS.

Mr. CHRISTIE: 50.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the large importation of foreign turkeys, many of which are described and sold as Norfolk turkeys; and whether he will, to insure their identification, make an order that all turkeys imported from abroad shall have one foot removed before their entry into this country?

Mr. N. BUXTON: I have received no specific complaints that imported turkeys are being mis-described in such a manner as would enable action to be taken under the Merchandise Marks Acts. In any case, fresh legislation would be required to give effect to the hon. Member's suggestion. I should add that I am hopeful of being able to introduce next year a scheme for the grading and marking of home-produced poultry which may largely serve the purpose which the hon. Member has in view.

Mr. LEES: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to carry out the wish of the Opposition by seeing that all potatoes that come from abroad have their eyes taken out?

POTATO DISEASES (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 51.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to prohibit the importation of potatoes from countries in which potato disease exists?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The importation of potatoes from certain countries is already prohibited, and it is only allowed from others under strict conditions. These measures have so far proved effective in preventing the introduction of potato diseases. If there should be any serious outbreak of potato disease in any country from which importation is now allowed, I should of course at once consider the question of prohibition.

SMALLHOLDINGS.

Viscount ELMLEY: 53.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will circularise county councils with regard to the desirability of their exercising their statutory powers for acquiring land for letting to smallholders at a fair rent wherever there is a demand for such land?

Mr. N. BUXTON: As I informed the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. W. B. Taylor) on the 12th December, in reply to a similar suggestion, the question of issuing a circular letter to county councils is a matter which is receiving my careful consideration.

Viscount ELMLEY: In view of the fact that so much land is going out of cultivation every year, cannot the county councils be reminded of the powers that they possess?

Mr. BUXTON: I am issuing a circular, and I have pointed to their duties by answers in this House.

Captain BENNETT: Has the Ministry of Agriculture ever exercised the powers vested in it by the Act of 1908 of procuring smallholdings for applicants in default of the county councils exercising their powers?

Mr. BUXTON: I regret to say that those powers were repealed by the late Government.

ANCIENT STATUTE'S.

Mr. DAY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider setting up a committee for the purpose of advising the Government as to the removal from the Statute Book of those laws which, being repugnant to modern thought, are no longer effective but still remain unrepealed?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I fully appreciate the point which my hon. Friend has in mind, but I cannot imagine any committee likely to report on such a subject with a sufficient amount of unanimity to be of any service to the Government.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is a committee sitting at present for the purpose of consolidating legislation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think there is, but, if the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper, I will give him a definite answer.

DISARMAMENT.

Mr. AYLES: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether Britain has any commitments either to the League of Nations or to the British Empire that prevent the House of Commons coming to any conclusion it desires with regard to disarmament; and, if so, whether he can state precisely what those commitments are and the extent to which they limit the action of this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations enjoins on all Member States and consequently on His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the reduction of their armaments "to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations," whist Article 16 imposes obligations upon us to join in action for the common enforcement of certain undertakings. Their commitments, as regards the British Empire, are dictated by the needs of self-defence.

Mr. AYLES: May I ask whether His Majesty's Government believe, so far as our own armaments are concerned, that there is still a margin whereby we can reduce to what the Prime Minister has
said to be the level of national safety, and, if not, may I ask why should we go into this Disarmament Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is because there may be that margin discovered only by international agreement that we are going into the five-Power Conference.

COAL MINES BILL.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he has received a communication from the president of the Federation of British Industries requesting that sufficient time may be given to industry to consider the provisions of the Coal Mines Bill; and if, in view of the far reaching effect of the Measure upon industry in all its branches, he will postpone the Second Reading till after the Parliamentary Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The general principles of the Bill have been known for some time and the Bill itself has been available since Thursday morning last. The Government believes that the best way to meet the desires of the Federation is to pursue the programme of business which has been announced.

Dr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many competent in dustrialists in this country feel that this Bill will raise the price of coal to the home consumer and will have a detrimental effect on both industry and employment; and that there is a much better chance of getting alterations made between the First and Second Reading than after the Second Reading?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is because I totally disagree with the hon. Member that the programme of business has been announced.

Dr. DAVIES: May we take it that the Prime Minister is of opinion that the present Bill will not raise the price of coal to the home consumer?

THAMES FLOODS (TATE GALLERY).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 54.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what steps
are being taken to protect pictures and drawings in the Tate Gallery in order to prevent a repetition of the damage done by the floods in the January of 1928?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have been asked to take this question. All the pictures and drawings are, I am assured, safely housed, well above any possible flood level.

CYPRUS.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 56.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state, in respect of the last financial year for Cyprus, what sums have been spent in administration; what in the upkeep of State property; and what has been used for the welfare and general development of the island?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): Apart from paper entries, the total Government expenditure in 1928 was £679,980. The whole of this sum, less £10,000 contributed to Imperial defence, was spent in the services and administration of the colony. This expenditure can properly be regarded as devoted to the welfare and general development of the island. I am not able to give an estimate of the proportion spent upon the upkeep of State property.

Mr. SMITH: 57.
asked the Under-.Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received a reply to the memorandum which has been sent to the Governor of Cyprus on the question of the future government of the island and the possibility of a commission of inquiry; and whether he can make any statement to the House?

Dr. SHIELS: The despatch in question does not necessarily call for a reply, and none has so far been received. A Command Paper containing the correspondence and giving full information will be laid as soon as possible.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: In view of the strong representations that have recently been made to the Government, cannot a commission of inquiry into this question be set up?

Dr. SHIELS: A commission of inquiry is not contemplated.

Mr. SMITH: 58.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the amount of public financial assistance given to Cyprus for education in each of the years since 1925; what is the number, approximately, of children

Year.
Amount of Government Assistance.
Amount of Education Tax.
Total public assistance.
No. of scholars on roll.
No. of children of Elementary School age.
No. of Elementary Scholars on roll.




£
£
£





1926*
…
55,617
43,282
98,899
51,875
63,000
48,500


1927*
…
61,629
43,083
104,712
50,139
63,000
46,677


1928*
…
61,747
43,868
105,615
51,025
64,000
47,654


1929 (est.)
…
63,550
Not available.


*"School years" from preceding 1st October to 30th September of year quoted.


No figures are available for the number of children of Secondary School age, and consequently no figure can be given for the total number of children of School age. There are 995 schools in the Colony at present of which 992 are State-aided.

PALESTINE DISTURBANCES (COMPENSATION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 59.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the compensation that is to he paid to the families of the Christians, Jews and Mohammedans that lost their lives in the recent disturbances in Palestine is to be found by the Palestine Government or the British Government?

Dr. SHIELS: Compensation will be paid by the Palestine Government.

FILM ("IRELAND'S ROUGH-HEWN DESTINY").

Major ROSS: 60.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the film "Ireland's Rough-hewn Destiny" referred exclusively to the Irish Free State and not to Ireland as a whole, he will arrange for it to be shown at the Empire Marketing Board's lectures under some less misleading title?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind in connection with any future arrangements that may he made for the display of this film under the Board's auspices.

of school age; and how many schools there are available at the present time?

Dr. SHIELS: As this reply contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Major ROSS: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give me the undertaking for which I ask? It is a very simple one.

Mr. LUNN: I said the other day that this film was not the property of the Empire Marketing Board. I have said that I will bear the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion in mind, and that, if the facts stated in the question are correct the position will be made clear if the lecture should be given again.

Major ROSS: If the facts given in the film are found to be misleading, will the hon. Gentleman undertake not to exhibit the film under a misleading title?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (RURAL AREAS).

Major ROSS: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the percentage of post offices and railway stations in Great Britain, excluding Northern Ireland, and in Northern Ireland, respectively, that are without public telephones?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): I assume the hon. and gallant Member has in mind rural areas. At the 30th September, 1929, the proportion of rural post offices and railway stations without public telephone call offices was 44 per cent. in Great Britain
and 69 per cent. in Northern Ireland. Arrangements have already been made to provide call offices at a number of post offices and railway stations which in September last were without such facilities, and a considerable number of further extensions are under consideration.

Major ROSS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that my question means what it says? I wanted to know the whole area, and, further, will he not take immediate steps to correct this inequality between one part of the Empire and the rest?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I assumed that the hon. Member meant rural areas, because his previous questions have referred to them. With regard to correcting the inequality in Northern Ireland, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that in the last six months 120 call offices have either been established or authorised.

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the expansions which he mentioned are being undertaken in consequence of the Budget this year?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The present Postmaster-General is not bound by the Budget of this year. I have considered the question, and, although these steps have been taken along the general lines of policy in the Budget, naturally I have had to make fresh decisions for myself.

OVERHEAD WIRES.

Mr. KINLEY: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has received any protests against overhead telegraph and telephone poles; and whether he proposes to deal with the cause of those protests?

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 64.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that certain municipal corporations, including that of Chatham, Kent, have passed resolutions that representations be made to His Majesty's Government urging that consideration be given to the powers at present conferred on him under the Telegraph Acts for the erection of overhead telegraphic and telephonic lines being amended, in order to provide that, where a local authority objects to the erection of poles in any road under its control on the grounds that the erection of such poles would create a nuisance or destroy the amenities of the neighbour-
hood, the lines be placed underground; and whether he has any statement to make upon the matter?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: A number of local authorities have made representations on the lines referred to by the hon. Members. Underground cables are laid to the fullest possible extent consistent with economy, but a proportion of overhead wires is essential to the widespread development of the telephone service unless altogether prohibitive expenditure is to be incurred. I should add that every endeavour is made to meet the views of local authorities as to the precise position of the poles for such lines.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that representations are often made against these lines going over houses; is he also aware that, if anything happens to the lines, the householders are held responsible, and will he take such steps to see, in such cases, that the lines are placed elsewhere?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I do not think a householder in the case mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member would be held responsible unless he had some dangerous, inflammable substance in his house, and for this he would have to accept responsibility if he caused damage to his next-door neighbour.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of a garage one must have inflammable substances?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am not aware that it is necessary to have inflammable subtances in such a way as to bring one within the reach of the law.

Mr. KINLEY: It is the definite policy of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to maintain permanently these overhead wires?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I would remind the hon. Member that seven-eighths of the wires are already underground, and that that policy is being rapidly extended.

EDUCATION (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES).

Mr. HARRIS: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can
make any statements as to his proposals for providing maintenance allowance when the proposal to raise the school age comes into operation; and whether they will be on the basis of a fiat rate or whether the rates will vary according to family needs or according to area?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I would ask the hon. Member to be good enough to repeat his question next Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

Major GLYN: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are now being taken, or are about to be taken, in the Metropolitan police area to introduce automatic traffic signals; when legislation will be introduced in order that proceedings may be taken against persons who do not obey such signals, and thus make it possible to effect a reduction in the number of Metropolitan police on point duty; how many police constables are to-day so employed; and what is the total cost of these officers in pay and allowances?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, after consultation with the London Traffic Advisory Committee, has in hand arrangements for an experimental installation of traffic signals in a portion of Oxford Street, and a provision as to disobedience to the indications of traffic signals is included in Clause 45 of the Road Traffic Bill now under consideration in another place. The number of constables employed on traffic duty in the Metropolitan police district in a recent week was 1,423, including about 1,100 authorised for permanent point duty. The average annual cost per constable is about £320 without making any allowance for relief for sickness, etc.

Mr. DAY: Have the present automatic traffic signals proved a success, especially those at Piccadilly?

ACCIDENT, ENFIELD.

Mr. W. W. HENDERSON: 76.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to inquire into the causes of the accident which occurred in Southbury Road, Enfield, on 11th December?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Ponsonby): I am sure that the House will join with my hon. Friend the Minister in expressing sincere regret at this terrible accident and at the loss of life, which it has caused. My hon. Friend has ordered an inquiry into the circumstances of this accident, and it is proposed to open the inquiry next Wednesday.

EXECUTIONS (ALIENS).

Viscountess ASTOR: 70.
asked the Home Secretary the countries of origin of the several alien murderers executed in England and Wales during the last 20 years?

Mr. SHORT: The information asked for is not available and could not be obtained without an unjustifiable expenditure of time and trouble. In any event I do not think that the publication of the information, if it could be obtained, would be desirable.

Viscountess ASTOR: As I cannot get the information, will the hon. Gentleman tell me later why he thinks that it would not be useful to give it?

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to have the law amended in regard to the application, by either husband or wife, who require separate assessments to Income Tax and Surtax, so that the yearly applications which have at present to be made before the 6th July in the year of assessment can be effective for subsequent years until the application is revoked by husband or wife?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and learned Member's suggestion will be borne in mind for consideration when next year's Finance Bill is in preparation.

Sir H. NIELD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Finance Act of 1918, and also in the Income Tax Act, 1918, there are Sections enabling this to be done; and will he not bear that in mind when he comes to consider smaller matters relating to finance?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is exactly the purport of my answer.

POLAND (BRITISH COMPANY'S CLAIM).

Mr. REMER: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the seizure by the Polish authorities of certain works at Radom, near Warsaw, in which a prominent British company has great financial interests; if he is aware that in spite a the fact that the Polish Government have admitted that the seizure of the works was wholly unjustified and illegal, that Government has refused any compensation if he is aware that unless this decision is altered tonight, 16th December, the British company in question must apply for a sequestration of the works involving the closing of the works and also involving serious loss of employment to British workmen, and if he will state what action he proposes to take?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the circumstances of this case, and recently I despatched urgent telegraphic instructions to His Majesty's Ambassador at Warsaw, whose reply has since been received and communicated to the British company in question. I have also instructed the Ambassador by despatch to present to the Polish Government the company's claim in respect of the losses incurred by them. There is, however, no likelihood of my receiving any further report by to-night, and the future policy of the British company can only be decided by the company themselves.

Mr. REMER: 13 the right hon. Gentleman aware that at an interview which I myself had at the Foreign Office with one of his officials, it was promised that prompt action would be taken, but, in spite of the fact that the solicitors to the company gave full details of this case on 18th November, yet on lath December the Foreign Office had done nothing whatever in the matter; and, in these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman say if that is the way in which the Foreign Office protects British interests?

Mr. HENDERSON: The information conveyed in the supplementary question is entirely new as far as I am concerned. Immediately the matter was brought to my notice I acted and acted with promptness. I am afraid that I cannot assist the hon. Member beyond the reply which I have already given to his question.

Mr. REMER: Is it a fact that, in a letter which I have in my possession and which was written by the right hon. Gentleman to the solicitors of the company, he stated that the company in question could do nothing in the matter without the acquiescence of the British Government?

Mr. HENDERSON.: I am afraid that I cannot add anything. I have sent all the information that has been communicated to me in the despatches to which I have referred in my answer, and I am afraid that I cannot carry the matter beyond that.

Mr. REMER: In view of the unsatisfactory reply which we have received and the fact that these works may be closing down to-night, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the failure of the Foreign Office to take steps to protect British interests affected by the seizure of the works at Radom by the Polish authorities."

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that that would not come under the rule relating to a definite matter of urgent public importance, especially as the Foreign Office seem to have done all that they could.

Mr. REMER: May I submit that the Foreign Office have refused this firm the right even to take legal action to establish their rights?

Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot allow the statement to go forth, as far as I am concerned, that the Foreign Office have denied the company a right. That right still exists, and I referred to it in the closing part of my answer. It rests with the company—and I did not wish to say that here—whether or not they will proceed in the courts that are available to them.

Mr. REMER: On a point of Order. In the right hon. Gentleman's own letter these words are used:
Should the Polish Government insist that the proper remedy, whether of the Radom Company or of the British company, is to take proceedings in the Polish Courts, His Majesty's Government will also have to acquiesce.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Foreign Office appear to have communicated with the British Ambassador.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, and in Committee of Supply and Committee of Ways

and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 151.

Division No. 99.]
AYES.
[3.51 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Palin, John Henry


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Paling, Wilfrid


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Palmer, E. T.


Alpass, J. H.
Hardie, George D.
Perry, S. F.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Angell, Norman
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Arnott, John
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Aske, Sir Robert
Haycock, A. W.
Pole, Major D. G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Ayles, Walter
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Potts, John S.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Harriotts, J.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Barnes, Alfred John
Hoffman, P. C.
Raynes, W. R.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hopkin, Daniel
Richards, R.


Bellamy, Albert
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Horrabin, J. F.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Bennett, Captain E.N.(Cardiff, Central)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Romerll, H. G.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rothschild, J. de


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Johnston, Thomas
Rowson, Guy


Bowen, J. W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertows)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kennedy, Thomas
Sandham, E.


Burgess, F. G.
K inley, J.
Sawyer, G. F.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Knight, Holford
Scrymgeour, E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Scurr, John


Calne, Derwent Hall
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sexton, James


Cameron, A. G.
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lawson, John James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Charleton, H. C.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sherwood, G. H.


Chater, Daniel
Leach, W.
Shield, George William


Church, Major A. G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lees, J.
Shillaker, J. F.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lewis T. (Southampton)
Shinwell, E.


Compton, Joseph
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cove, William G.
Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Daggar, George
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Dallas, George
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)


Day, Harry
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Rennle (Penlstone)


Devlin, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Dickson, T.
McEntee, V. L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Mackinder, W.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Dukes, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Sorensen, R.


Duncan, Charles
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Ede, James Chuter
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Stephen, Campbell


Edmunds, J. E.
McShane, John James
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Strauss, G. R.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
March, S.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Egan, W. H.
Marley, J.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Elmley, Viscount
Matters, L. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.)
Maxton, James
Thurtle, Ernest


Gardner, B. W.(West Ham, Upton)
Messer, Fred
Tinker, John Joseph


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Millar, J. D.
Townend, A. E.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Mills, J. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Montague, Frederick
Turner, B.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Vaughan, D. J.


Gill, T. H.
Morley, Ralph
Viant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Walker, J.


Glassey, A. E.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Wallace, H. W.


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gossling, A. G.
Mort, D. L.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Gould, F.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Watkins, F. C.


Granville, E.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Muggerldge, H. T.
West, F. R.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, Hugh
Westwood, Joseph


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Oldfield, J. R.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Wise, E. F.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)



Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Eden, Captain Anthony
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Penny, Sir George


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Viscountess
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atholl, Duchess of
Ferguson, Sir John
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Flelden, E. B.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balfour, Captain H. H. (J, of Thanet)
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Purbrlck, R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ramsbotham, H.


Beaumont, M. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Remer, John R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Berry, Sir George
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gower, Sir Robert
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Grace, John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Salmon, Major I.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Boyce, H. L.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Bracken, B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwlch)
Savery, S. S.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Skelton, A. N.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)


Buchan, John
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smlthers, Waldron


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerset, Thomas


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Butler, R. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Somervllle, D. G. (Wlllesden, East)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm.,W.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Christie, J. A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Llewellln, Major J. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Homsey)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Long, Major Eric
Ward, Lieut..Col. Sir A. Lambert


Colman, N. C. D.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wardlaw-Mllne, J. S.


Colville, Major D. J.
Macquisten, F. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cranbourne, Viscount
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, Sydney R.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Marjorlbanks, E. C.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Strentham)
Wlndsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Cunllffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Dalkeith, Earl of
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. sir Godfrey
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cllve
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Margesson.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert



Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Amendments to—

Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.

As amended, further considered.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAuss.—(Amendment of first statutory condition for receipt of benefit.)

Sub-section (4) of Section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927 (which amends the first statutory condition in relation to persons incapacitated for work by reason of some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement) shall have effect as if after the word "disablement" there were inserted the words "or employed in any of the employments specified in Part II of the First Schedule to the principal Act," and as if after the word "incapacity" there were inserted the words "or if such employment as aforesaid.—[Miss Bondfield.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this new Clause is to deal with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Dr. Marion Phillips). As sick work-people are allowed an additional period before being regarded as failing to satisfy the contribution qualification, that provision is now extended to those persons who are employed in a non-insurable trade. The Section, as finally amended, will read as follows:
(4) If an insured contributor proves in the prescribed manner that he was during any periods, falling within the period of two years mentioned in the first statutory condition, incapacitated for work by reason of some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement, or employed in any of the employments specified in Part II of the First Schedule to the principal Act, the said condition shall have effect as if for the said period of two years there were substituted a period of two years increased by the said periods of incapacity, or of such employment as aforesaid, but so as not to exceed in any case four years.

Major ELLIOT: This new Clause raises a question of some importance, and it will be well to note here that we are making, to a certain extent, a further breach in the principle of genuine compulsory insurance. No doubt it is a good thing that every encouragement should be given to persons to find work,
if it is at all possible, in any uninsured trades, but it is clear that the unsuccessful lives will tend to fall back again upon the insurance fund. There is no doubt that that process of filtration is about to take place.

Miss BONDFIELD: It may be so, but I do not think we should discourage people from going into domestic service or agriculture.

Major ELLIOT: I point it out only from the point of view of the contributors to the fund. They will find themselves, in so far as this scheme works successfully, saddled with an increasing number of bad lives. A filtration of successful lives will take place in agriculture, domestic service or other employment, and the bad lives will tend to fall back into the fund, and to that extent will tend to be a further drain upon its resources. We are not unacquainted with the subject in health insurance, and one of the difficulties of helping people to pass out and back again, or extending the principle of voluntary contributions to health insurance, is, of course, the selection of bad lives. In this case the good lives will gain success in the new line of employment into which they have entered, and the bad lives will fall back into the fund and still further drain its resources.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to notifica- tion by employers of vacant situa- tions.)

With a view to securing that all vacant situations shall so far as possible be notified under Sub-section (1) of Section four of this Act to claimants for benefit and facilitating the giving of directions under the said Sub-section by officers of Employment Exchanges, the Minister shall so far as practicable make arrangements with employers for the notification by them to Employment Exchanges of situations in their employments which are vacant or about to become vacant, and for that purpose the Minister shall consult associations of employers and employés, as the circumstances of the case may require.—[Miss Bondfield.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a Clause which was agreed to on the Amendment of the hon. Member for
Middlesbrough West (Mr. K. Griffith). I think it is what we call a declaratory Clause, and that it is not necessary for me to take up time by explaining it.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: My hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) is not here, but I should like to acknowledge the fact that the Minister has in this Clause met his plea for new arrangements, especially the reorganisation of the labour arrangements at the docks.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Might I ask what steps the Minister proposes to take with regard to the very desirable object which has been in the minds of her predecessors at the Ministry of Labour? Has she anything definite to tell us as to what is going to be done to carry out the excellent idea, or is it merely platitudinous?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is not platitudinous as far as the Department is concerned. We propose to initiate conferences to get a much healthier public opinion on this subject.

Commander WILLIAMS: I would like to raise one or two questions arising out of this most excellent, or presumably most excellent, Clause. I would emphasise what has been said by my hon. Friend. We are told that the Minister intends to carry out this proposal by a series of conferences. I want to know quite frankly on what lines she proposes to base these conferences. Quite clearly, she cannot tell us herself, but I see the Lord Advocate is here to-day. Might we have from him, for example, some explanation as to how he proposes to divide up Scotland into sections for these conferences? There you have a wide and scattered country with very differing conditions. Then, again, I would ask the Minister whether she proposes to divide the necessitous areas in any way from those areas which have a reasonable amount of prosperity? There is a third question. Would she be so kind as to tell the House, because it particularly interests some of us, what particular proposal she intends making as far as the West of England is concerned? Will these conferences affect one area? Will they affect trade or what? Will she have a conference, say, at Plymouth, for the whole of Devon and Cornwall, or one affecting the West country mining
areas, or will she have a big national conference affecting the wider issue? As she has mentioned this very important idea, with which many have great sympathy, we ought to have some further knowledge of what it is.

Earl WINTERTON: We would like to get the position quite clear. I understand from what the Minister said that this is purely a declaratory Clause. She spoke of initiating conferences, but has she anything specific in her mind?

Mr. McSHANE: Before the Minister replies, may I make the suggestion in connection with these conferences that one way of preventing the unemployed from having to walk about from factory to factory, is to adopt the plan of putting up sign-boards outside the factories intimating that employers communicate all their vacancies to Employment Exchanges? That prevents men having to go to factories needlessly.

Miss BONDFIELD: By leave of the House, I will say that the answer to the whole of the questions asked by the hon. Member opposite can be summed up in this way: Obviously, the conferences will follow the lines of the organisation of the Exchange machinery. It is divided into divisions and districts for machinery, statistics, and so on. Obviously, also, the conferences will be composed of those parties who are represented as contributors to the fund, the employers, workers and the public. We have to-day a certain amount of provision in regard to the expanding areas where we hope to get employment, and the areas that are restricted areas, such as the mining or distressed areas. The purpose of the conferences will be to see the degree to which we can get agreement as to the numbers that will be removed from distressed areas which cannot absorb them into the areas which can absorb them. The whole thing will be within the ambit of the present organisation of the Exchanges, and of the present personnel and the interests served by the Exchange machinery.

Commander WILLIAMS: I am afraid I did not make one of my questions clear. I am not sure whether these conferences are or are not legal. I think, before passing the Clause, we ought to have a clear legal definition as to whether the Minister has a right to do this.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member cannot speak a second time.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Rates of contributions for young persons.)

Every employed person who has attained the age of fifteen but who has not attained the age of sixteen, and every employed person who has attained the age of sixteen but who has not attained the age of eighteen, and every employer of any such person shall be liable to pay contributions at the rates specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act. —[Captain Crook shank.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause should be read in conjunction with the proposed Fourth Schedule on the Amendment Paper, and should also be read in connection with the existing First Schedule to the Bill. Its object is anticipatory, because it depends upon whether Clause 1 is or is not kept in the Bill. One hopes very much that Clause 1 will not be left in the Bill—we shall enter our protest against it when the time comes—but we cannot be certain, because in the Committee stage the Socialist party supported the Clause, the Conservative party opposed it, and the Liberal party went away, and we do not know in what direction the Liberal party will vote. When the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," was put, the Liberals went away. [Interruption.] At any rate, they abstained from voting. The great objection most of us have to the early part of the Bill is the bringing of these children of 15 within the ambit of unemployment insurance at all. There has been no demand from any quarter for that to be done. The right hon. Lady is bringing them in in order to help finance the Fund which she herself, by her most recent Amendments, has bankrupted. We want to do what we can to mitigate the evil as far as the children are concerned. That is why we ask for this Clause, and eventually for the Schedule that goes with it. We on this side of the House are not prepared to go quite as far as some of the right hon. Lady's Friends, for example, the First Commissioner of Works, who, not so very long
ago in this House, suggested that benefits should not be paid at all to young men between the ages of 18 and 25, because it was so demoralising for them. The First Commissioner of Works was most emphatic about that, and said he could not understand how any man or woman could face the wholesale demoralisation that was going on day by day among the young men of from 18 to 25 years of age. While I do not accept that as a statement of fact, that was the view of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. VAUGHAN: On a point of Order. What was the date of that speech?

Captain CROOKSHANK: When the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough, he will know, first of all, that that is not a point of Order, and, secondly, he will know that I, at any rate, have never made any statement in this House without being able to give the reference. I have here the OFFICIAL REPORT of 9th March, 1925, containing the speech of the First Commissioner of Works, in which were these words I have already give to the House:
I cannot understand how any man or woman here can face the wholesale demoralisation that is going on day by day among the young men of from 18 to 25 years of age.
I said that I do not agree with it as a reading of the situation. [Interruption.] I am not going to read the whole speech, hut that is the point that I was making. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Probably I shall he very much abused for saying what I am about to say, but for my part I would stop giving any young man between the ages which I have mentioned a farthing for doing nothing, right away, and, unless he cared to come and earn under decent conditions some money, either in the countryside or somewhere else, he could starve."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1925; col. 990, Vol. 181.]
That is not a doctrine to which I subscribe at all, but we should try and limit the possible damage to those who are more liable to be injured because of their tender years. That is why we on this side of the House ask that this Clause should be read a Second time. We are strengthened in putting forward this view by the fact that it is the view recommended by the only authoritative body which has gone into this question and which the right hon. Lady has not yet
thrown over; that is, the Malcolm Committee. She has thrown over the views of her Socialist predecessor, the Secretary of State for War. She has thrown over the views of the Blanesburgh Committee, whose Report she signed, and the views of the majority of the Morris Committee, which she appointed. Incidentally, if committees are appointed, and, after being asked to report in great haste and to give their views for the benefit of this House, are thrown over by the Government after a very few hours' debate, it will not be very easy in future to get ladies and gentlemen to serve on such committees. The right hon. Lady has also thrown over the Attorney-General in regard to a speech which he made 10 days ago; that perhaps was his own fault, for he had forgotten that he had so recently crossed the Floor of the House. Finally, she has thrown over her expert advisers; that is explicit in the White Paper which was published last week. The one committee, however, which she has not so far thrown over is the Malcolm Committee, and on page 68 of their Report, which was published in 1926, the right hon. Lady will find that they made the recommendation that there should be some sort of relationship between the rates of benefit which juveniles of these ages should get and average wages, and that there should also be some connection therewith and the rates of contribution. They said:
The rates of benefit to be paid to juveniles of fourteen to fifteen should bear the same relation to the average wages earned by juveniles of these ages as the rates of benefit in force for the juveniles of sixteen to seventeen bear to the average wages which juveniles of those ages receive.
With regard to contributions, they reported that in their opinion
the rates of contribution in respect of juveniles from fourteen to eighteen should be so adjusted as to secure that the total amount received in contributions did not exceed the total amount which would be received from the contributions in respect of juveniles of sixteen to seventeen if juveniles of fourteen to fifteen were not insured.
That is rather a complicated sentence, but the effect of it is that the Committee felt that there was some definite connection between, on the one hand, the contributions that were to be paid by the youngest persons in insurance, and, on the other hand, firstly the wages that they would receive when in employment,
secondly, the benefits that they would receive when out of employment, and, thirdly, the risks of unemployment. These are the three points which must be correlated with the amount of their contributions. We on this side of the House have not the advantage of being able to draw upon the estimates of the Government Actuary, and we cannot be certain—and I give the right hon. Lady a present of this argument—that the figures put into the proposed Fourth Schedule are actuarially correct, but they represent the best estimate that we have been able to get from the information at our disposal. That Schedule suggests that in the case of boys under 16, the contribution should be 1½d., and for girls 1d., rising to 2½d. and 2d. respectively between the ages of 16 and 18. On the other side of the picture, we have the question of the wages, but that is not a matter for arrangement in this House. Then we have the question of unemployment in the juvenile categories, and there we are dealing with a non-existent question, as is shown by the information which the right hon. Lady's own Department gave to the Morris Committee. If the school age is raised to 15 in 1931, there will be a shortage of juveniles going into employment of 428,000, rising in the next three years to 762,000. At the end of that time, for something like 2,000,000 jobs available, only one and a third million juveniles will be available. Therefore, the risk of unemployment hardly comes in at all.
On the other hand, there is the question of benefits. In the Bill we have the benefits which are proposed by the Government for this particular class of juvenile, and they should be read in conjunction with this new Clause and the Fourth Schedule which we are proposing. They are found in the first Schedule of the Bill, and they provide for persons under 17, 6s. for boys and 5s. for girls, rising to 9s. and 7s. 6d. respectively between 17 and 18. There, again, one is met with inconsistency in some of those who sit on the Front Government Bench. The right hon. Lady will remember the great speech which the Secretary of State for War made when he spoke about the 30 pieces of silver, about Judas Iscariot, and about rather having a millstone hung round his neck than having any differentiation between those under 21 and those over 21. Yet in this
Measure we are accentuating—quite properly I think—this difference; if you give benefits at all to these juveniles, they should receive smaller benefits at the age of 15–16 than at the age of 21 and over.
I ask the right hon. Lady to argue this question with us, and not just to pass it off lightly and with a smile, as she has often done in the course of these Debates. I ask her to argue the question why she should not adopt this recommendation by the Malcolm Committee, and to say whether she does not admit that there is a close connection between the contributions on the one side, and the benefits, the risk of unemployment, and the normal wages upon the other. We find that she is trying to make a profit out of these children. One cannot get away from the figures which are provided by the Government Actuary. On page 4 of his Report, he puts it explicitly that the fund resulting from the lowering of the age of coming into insurance will start by making a net gain of £500,000 a year. Then there will be a gradual decline, and a rise again to the same figure in 1935. That is for the boys and girls under 16. With regard to the age group 16–18, with which we deal in our new Schedule, the right hon. Lady supplied some figures in reply to a question on 12th December. From these figures, it appears that in the case of boys in the 16–17 age group, the contribution will be £1,300,000; the girls contribution will be £900,000; making a total contribution from that age group of £2,200,000. The cost of benefit for the same groups will be £300,000 for males and £200,000 for females, making a total of £500,000, leaving a, net profit once again to the fund, out of the youngest entrants into insurance, of just on £1,750,000 to be added to the £500,000 profit from the youngest group of all.
The right hon. Lady, by the new Clause which has been put into the Bill, has brought in a new class with regard to what used to be known as "genuinely seeking work" and something like half the amount of the extra burden is being recouped from these unfortunate children whom she is bringing in without anybody wishing them to be brought in. Who is going to profit out of the enormous funds collected from the children? If you go through the groups, you will find that
the adult men are going to profit at the expense of the children. The foulest crime known to English jurisprudence is the crime, which occasionally emerges from the sub-strata of society, of making money out of boys and girls. I put it to the party opposite, to the Government, and to the right hon. Lady herself: Are they not acting on somewhat similar lines when they go out of their way to collect from the young children contributions out to all proportion to any benefit that those children may ever receive, merely to bolster up the bankrupt budget of their Unemployment Fund? One of these days the right hon. Lady will have to stand at the bar of public opinion for what she is doing in this Bill, and it will be out of the mouths of babes and sucklings that she will stand condemned, and with her the whole of the party behind her.

Sir A. POWNALL: I beg to second the Motion.

Miss BONDFIELD: The speech to which we have just listened is full of astonishing statements, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not expect me to spend very much time on them. He takes a very exaggerated view of the intention of the Bill, and that is obvious when one remembers that the age 16 group is precisely the same as it was in the old Act, and that the age groups on both sides have been merely adjusted in a manner which will make for smoother working. For the group 18, 19 and 20 to have the same rate of benefit, will be an administrative convenience. The 15 group has been brought into the same relation as the 16 group; they slide one into the other, and any differentiation between them would be ridiculous and unnecessary. The general principle of the fund since 1927 has been that you put into the fund according to your ability if you are an insured person, and you take out of it according to your need. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's own Government accepted that principle as the basis of the 1927 Act. There is no relation at present between the individual contributions and the benefit that may be drawn. The relation is based upon a collective responsibility. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Nottingham said truly, and represented what I have said in previous Debates, that this Insurance Fund in the 1927 Act was based on the principle of fire insurance
where the payment you get for the damage caused is irrespective of its relation to the amount actually paid in premium, subject, of course, to certain governing conditions. I think there is a general concensus of opinion in favour of the present basis of insurance, for which all parties in the House are jointly responsible. I must oppose the Clause.

Captain CAZALET: The right hon. Lady has done scant justice to the excellent and well-informed speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). He made one particular request. With every courtesy, he expressed the hope that the right hon. Lady would not dismiss the Clause, as she has dismissed so many other suggestions from this side of the House, with a few cursory sentences, but I regret to say that that is exactly the attitude she has adopted towards his eminently reasonable proposal. We have previously expressed our opinions on the subject of bringing children between 15 and 16 years of age into the unemployment insurance scheme. We contend that if they are to be brought in, at any rate we ought to make a. fair relation between the amount they pay and the benefits which they are likely to get out of the fund. The figures quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend have not been denied by the right hon. Lady or by a single hon. Member apposite, and if those figures are a true indication of the extent to which the fund will benefit by the contributions of these young people. I content that it is a scandal there should not be a more reasonable relationship between the contributions and the benefits.
I remember listening a few years ago to many attacks from hon. Members who then sat on these benches regarding details of the Miscellaneous Provisions (Economy) Act. They accused us of robbing the sick man, of robbing the soldier, of robbing the sailor, and so on, though we know perfectly well that not one of those individuals was deprived of a penny of his rightful benefit by that Act, which was passed by a Conservative Government. What would hon. Members opposite have said had we made a proposal of this nature? "Robbing the children" would have been the least violent expression they would have used regarding our action. If we take the contributions
in respect of these children between 15 and 16 which are paid by themselves, their employers and the State, we find that they will furnish no less than £600,000 to the fund, and at the most only £100,000 is likely to be spent on training centres and in other directions in giving these insured children some reasonable benefit for their contributions. It is a very unfair thing indeed to take such contributions from these children, whose wages are extremely low, being in many cases purely nominal wages while they are learning their trade.
The hon. Lady has dismissed the sum of 3d. or 4d. per week as though it were nothing, and yet if we propose to diminish anything by a penny we get speech after speech from the benches opposite saying that we do not understand how hard conditions are, and how a penny here and a penny there may make all the difference between comfort and misery to an individual family. Here we have 3d. or 4d. per week taken from young girls and boys, but it is regarded as of no account; they must contribute, it is said; it is all a part of the general scheme. We accept the principle that you must take some contributions from them if they are to be brought into the scheme, but we say their contributions should bear some reasonable relation to the amount of benefit they will possibly receive. In Schedule 4 we have worked out to the best of our ability the amounts of the contributions they ought to be called upon to pay. As my hon. Friend said, we have not the machinery available to determine exactly the right amounts to be put into Schedule 4. My hon. Friend asked the right hon. Lady to tell him whether those figures were more or less right, but I do not gather from her speech that she has ever taken the trouble to pay any attention to those figures. The Clause was moved with great sincerity, and, from a purely political point of view, it will do us much more good if the Clause is not accepted than if it is passed. But I think the right hon. Lady might have shown us the courtesy of at least reading the Clause in conjunction with the Schedule and replying at greater length and making some endeavour to answer our questions.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I think the right hon. Lady has taken this Clause in the wrong spirit. We are really
coming to her assistance. She may regard us with suspicion, as Greeks bringing gifts in our hands, but she is quite wrong in that suspicion. The right hon. Lady has fought the battle of this Bill somewhat singlehanded. We have seen her in great difficulties. Once when she was in really considerable difficulty the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) was not present to come to her assistance, nor was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) who got her out of the difficulty, it was his generous attitude which prevented the Bill from being utterly wrecked. Therefore, she should not regard the assistance which she gets from these benches with such hostility and suspicion. The case for this new Clause is exceedingly strong. It has been agreed in every inquiry which has been made into this matter, including the inquiry by the Morris Committee, and in the report of the actuary, that there will be more work for juveniles than juveniles for the work. Further, it has been established beyond the possibility of question that the Unemployment Fund will benefit by at least £300,000 a year, and probably £600,000 a year, out of these juveniles. One would have thought that would have been a very strong argument to induce the right hon. Lady to pay some attention to this Clause, but her heart is hardened against us. Even if it could be shown beyond any doubt that there would be no juvenile unemployment in the next 10 years, her heart would still be hardened, and she would still insist on juveniles paying the contributions proposed in the Bill.
I think the cat was let out of the bag by the right hon. Lady in a discussion on another part of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was only a kitten!"] Let the hon. Member wait to hear what the kitten really was. She was discussing the case of domestic service and said she would welcome the inclusion of domestic servants in the scheme because they were good lives and there was practically no unemployment among them and therefore the Unemployment Fund would benefit enormously. I hope that every domestic servant and every juvenile will note the implication of that statement. The right hon. Lady knows that juveniles
are among the best lives and that she can largely count upon juveniles keeping in employment and drawing no unemployment benefit. It will be a pity if the principle is to be established in peace as well as in war, that youth has to pay for the failures of middle age; but that is what is happening under this scheme. Youth is being exploited. The right hon. Lady talked in the language of insurance about good lives and bad lives, but an actuary calculates very nicely not only what is going to be paid in the case of a risk maturing, but also the chances of that risk maturing at all. It does not need a Government actuary to work out the figures in this case. Any hon. Member opposite with a knowledge of the rule-of-three could do it for her. If the Government actuary were asked to work out a premium for the life of the present Government, I do not know what he would say. [An HON. MEMBER: "It will be three years."] I think a very high premium would have to be paid.
The right hon. Lady has been deaf to our arguments. What we really need from her is a change of heart. We want her to recognise that it is unfair that young people should have to pay contributions which bear no proportion to what they will receive. We want her to recognise that there ought to be some element of mathematics in this matter, that she should take into consideration the simple principles of arithmetic and the ordinary principles of equity. If only she will do that, she will make her Measure infinitely more popular. If there is a principle behind her attitude, and she is not actuated merely by considerations of expediency, I suppose her principle is that this is a national scheme of insurance and that everybody must come into it, good lives or bad lives. If that be the principle, a great sense of pessimism appears to underlie it, because it assumes that the young people who are now paying their contributions will, when they grow up into adults, come to a period where unemployment will be their probable lot and that at that time another generation of young people will be paying to assist to insure them against the ills of unemployment. That assumes that the unemployment problem will remain as great in the future as it is to-day. That is a very pessimistic attitude. We on these benches think the time will come when the unemployment problem will pass
away. We think that when some of these young people have grown up there will be a sound Conservative Government in power which will have permanently solved the unemployment problem by a wise Imperial. policy, and we merely ask that in the meantime those young people should be treated in a spirit of equity, and not despoiled in accordance with the principle of expediency which the right hon. Lady has so frankly and cynically avowed.

Commander WILLIAMS: All who have heard the very able speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) will agree that it was one that had been well thought out, and he must have have given this new Clause very careful consideration. My hon. and gallant Friend and those acting with him have made a real effort to try and balance the amount of contributions with the amount that is likely to be raised from this class of person. The Minister of Labour made a very few observations in reply to this proposal, and she laid down the principle that, under this Bill, you should pay according to your ability, and benefit roughly according to your needs. That is the principle which she laid down. As far as I am personally concerned, I have no reason to quarrel with those words, but, after all, the Bill is not based on the principle that you should pay according to your ability, because the larger part of the contribution will be paid by the State, and the ability of the State to pay this money at the present time is very small indeed.
The bulk of the complaints in regard to the position which has been taken up by the right hon. Lady is that under this Bill you will cause the whole of your juvenile people to pay their contributions, and it is very unlikely that they will obtain any benefit at all. It is possible that some of them may benefit, but a large number of those who are best acquainted with the conditions of industry think that the number of juniors who will actually draw the benefit will be very small indeed. It does not seem to be realised that we are dealing, not with a voluntary system in which, people can come in and out just when they like, but with a system in which people are compulsorily insured. It is absolutely essential and necessary that the House of Commons in laying down
the regulations under the Bill should be perfectly certain that there is no sense of unfairness or injustice in those regulations.
It is a very bad thing to start these young people under an insurance system if it can be shown in any way that you are taking too much out of them, and not giving them a fair return for their money. I do not say that the Minister of Labour is taking an unfair advantage of the children; that is not the basis of my argument. I have always believed in insurance as a general principle, but, when you make it compulsory, you should be clear that, although the better lives and the younger lives may have to carry the worse and the older lives you should pot place on any section an undue burden. If the people we are discussing had been brought into insurance under the last Government, or any other Government, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been the very, first to attack such a proposal; they would have raised the question up and down the country and in the House of Commons, and their speeches about unfairness and all that sort of thing would have been as violent as they would have been lacking in the fundamental elements of accuracy. It has been rather a curious thing throughout the Debates on this Measure that nearly the whole of the arguments and expressions of opinion on questions directly affecting the younger lives, and the attempts made to make this a better Bill, have invariably come from the Conservative party.
It is a discreditable thing that the Minister of Labour should reply to a well-considered amending Clause in two or three minutes, in the course of which she insinuated that our proposal was not sound and our statements were inaccurate. The right hon. Lady could pot prove one piece of inaccuracy in our speeches; in fact, she did not try to do so, but rode off by saying, "Oh, there is nothing in this." That has been the state of mind of most Members of the Government during this Session. They have failed to meet our arguments all that they have done has been to make some disconnected statement which has very little to do with the question and then they sit down and let their proposals; go through. Legislation of this kind and attempts by the Government to put
pressure on the House of Commons have been tried before, and the result has always been the same in the end.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be getting far away from the proposal before the House.

Commander WILLIAMS: I appeal to the right hon. Lady to tell us why she will not accept our proposals, or else ask one of her supporters to say exactly why the Government will not accept this reasonable, adequate, and advantageous Clause.

Major ELLIOT: I think the Minister of Labour treated the House with great curtness, not to say discourtesy, in the reply which she made to this proposal. We brought this proposal forward in the Second Reading Debate, and the right hon. Lady then admitted that by the proposal which she brought forward in the Bill she was placing an unfair burden on the unemployed, and she admitted that she was overcharging the young people in order to overpay the old people. Afterwards, she defended the same proposal on the ground that it was one which would teach the young people thrift. The Minister of Labour attempted to give a further defence in her speech upon the Money Resolution, and she said that the Government were not doing as much as we claimed, and that it was unfair to say that all the money paid by the young people was being used to bolster up the funds of the older people. She also reminded us that they had to consider the contributions paid by the employer and the State as well as the contributions paid by the young people themselves. This is what the Minister of Labour said on this subject:
The total sum that will come to the fund from the three-fold source is £600,000, and slightly less than £200,000 will be contributed by boys and girls directly; that is, by deductions from their wages. Against that is set the possible expenditure of benefit, which whenever possible is only paid on condition that it is accompanied by attendance at classes, and that amount is £100,000. There will also be deducted the cost of training, which we regard as a fundamental part of the scheme, and which we hope to continue to develop on even broader lines than at present. There is really therefore no case to be made in regard to this being any tax upon the child." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1929; col. 1101, Vol. 232.]
This means that the child puts its money into a money box and two other parties also put money into the same box, but the right hon. Lady has cut a trap door in the back of the box and extracts the contributions paid by the employer and the State, and then she says "That will teach the young people thrift." Could you imagine anything more likely to discourage a young man than burgling his money box, and then telling him that this had been done to teach him thrift. My view is that this provision will teach a young person not to leave twopence anywhere that the right hon. Lady can put her fingers upon it. The proposal which we are discussing was denounced by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who said that it was the one part of the Bill for which he could not find any justification, and on this question he said that he found himself in opposition to his own party. When a proposal is introduced to bring young people into insurance I think it is only just to make sure that every step is taken to see that the proposal has the smallest possible amount of disadvantage.
The Minister of Labour should be better acquainted with the principles of insurance than to defend a proposal of this kind on the ground of insurance. The right hon. Lady knows that you have to pay a very small premium when you insure a good life. Time after time on this question we have been told by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) and other Members sitting on the back benches opposite that this Bill is simply a relief scheme buttressed up by a poll tax. At one time, the right hon. Lady defends her position by arguing that she must protect the principle of insurance, and at another time she says that she has to surrender to the claims of humanity. She must say on which leg she is going to stand. Under the Bill, the premium charged is three times as much as that which ought to be demanded for the benefits offered, and to say that this is being done in order to teach young people thrift is one of the most fantastic defences that has ever been placed before the House.
I am sure the defence which has been put forward by the Minister of Labour is one which would not have appealed to herself when a child if her money had been taken away from her and given to somebody else on the ground that that
was the best way to teach her thrift. On this question, we propose to proceed to a Division, because the proposal of the Government is one to which we take the strongest exception. The Government are embarking upon a dangerous and an unjust step, and, later on, we shall propose to leave out the Clause in the Bill which makes the proposal which we have been discussing. Whatever be the fate of that Amendment, this Clause, which proposes to bring the contributions into some relation with the risk, and thereby to follow out the real principles of insurance, which the right hon. Lady defends, is one which will meet with the approval of all of us in this quarter of the House, and I believe also of hon. Members below the Gangway. At any rate, we propose to go to a Division and test the opinion of the House on the matter.

Major COLFOX: Are we not going to have a reply from the Government on this extremely important matter? I know, of course, that the right hon. Lady uttered a few sentences a short while ago, but, in my submission, that was no reply whatever to the arguments which have been raised. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved this proposed new Clause in a very clear speech said quite definitely what were his objects and the objects of those on, this side who support him, and he said, quite rightly, that, since we on this side cannot command the services of the Government Actuary, we are not certain whether the figures in the Amendment to the Schedule will, in fact, exactly carry out the intentions and objects with which that, Amendment was put down. Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Lady, even if she cannot herself give the answer, to give it through the mouth of one of her colleagues sitting near her—do the figures in the proposed Amendment to the Schedule carry out the intention of the Mover of this proposed new Clause, and, if they do not, what is it that is inaccurate in my hon. and gallant Friend's

statement? I on the other hand, they do carry it out, what is the objection of the Government to incorporating those figures in the Bill?

Absolutely no reason has been given for the rejection of this Clause. It is another instance of the tyranny of Socialism and the Socialist party. They consider that it is their privilege and province to ride roughshod over any defenceless people in the country. We have seen an instance of the same principle in the way that they have ridden roughshod over the members of various trade unions. That, of course, is by the way; it is merely another instance of the sort of thing which they are doing in this Bill. Before they decide finally to rob the children of the countryside in the way that they are doing in this Bill, we have a right, surely, to ask them to give us a definite answer to a definite question, and to give us a definite reason why they see fit not to incorporate this Amendment in the Bill. I do not know, of course, how many supporters of the Government are parents of young children, but I do know that the vast majority of the parents of children in these age-groups throughout the country will feel that they have been unjustly treated in having to submit to the robbery of their children, possibly for years, though I do not think that the operation of this Measure is likely to last for very many years, even if it becomes law. The Socialist party, in refusing to accept this very sensible and moderate Amendment, will be piling up for themselves the wrath and opposition of every parent throughout the length and breadth of this land. I appeal most earnestly to the right hon. Lady to give us, either personally or through the mouth of one of her friends, a definite reply to these very definite questions.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 241.

Division No. 100.]
AYES.
[5.7 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brass, Captain Sir William


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Beaumont, M. W.
Briscoe, Richard George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Buckingham, Sir H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Berry, Sir George
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Atkinson, C.
Bird, Ernest Roy
Butler, R. A.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Balfour, George (Hampstcad)
Boyce, H. L.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Christie, J. A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Iveagh, Countess of
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Colfox, Major William Philip
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbort
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Colvillie, Major D. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Savery, S. S.


Cranbourne, Viscount
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Skelton, A N.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smithers, Waldron


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Somerset, Thomas


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Long, Major Eric
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, F. A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W,
Tinne, J. A.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ferguson, Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Ford, Sir P. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur dive
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Warrender, Sir Victor


Gault, Lieut.-Cot. Andrew Hamilton
O'Neill, Sir H.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Gower, Sir Robert
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wells, Sydney R.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Winterton, Rt. Hen. Earl


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hartington, Marquess of
Purbrick, R.



Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsbotham, H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Remer, John R.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir George Penny.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.



Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Day, Harry
Herriotts, J.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Devlin, Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Alpass, J. H.
Dickson, T.
Hoffman, P. C.


Ammon, Charles George
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hopkin, Daniel


Angell, Norman
Dukes, C.
Horrabin, J. F.


Arnott, John
Duncan, Charles
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Aske, Sir Robert
Ede, James Chuter
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edmunds, J. E.
Isaacs, George


Ayles, Walter
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Egan, W. H.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Eimley, Viscount
Johnston, Thomas


Barnes, Alfred John
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jones, Rt. Hon, Lelf (Camborne)


Bellamy, Albert
Foot, Isaac
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N 1
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Kelly, W. T.


Benson, G.
Gill, T. H.
Kennedy, Thomas


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gillett, George M.
Kinley, J.


Birkett, W. Norman
Glassey, A. E.
Knight, Holford


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gosling, Harry
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Bowen, J. W.
Gossling, A. G.
Lathan, G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gould, F.
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Granville, E.
Lawrence, Susan


Brockway, A. Fenner
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lawson, John James


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Burgess, F. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Leach, W.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Groves, Thomas E.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lees, J.


Caine, Derwent Hall
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Cameron, A. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Longden, F.


Charleton, H. C.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Chater, Daniel
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Lowth, Thomas


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hardie, George D.
Lunn, William


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Harris, Percy A.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Compton, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Cove, William G.
Haycock, A. W.
McEntee, V. L.


Daggar, George
Hayday, Arthur
Mackinder, W.


Dallas, George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
MacLaren, Andrew




Macpherson, Rt. Hon James I.
Potts, John S.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


McShane, John James
Price, M. P.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Malone, C. L. Estrange (N'Hhampton)
Pybus, Percy John
Sorensen, R.


Mansfield, W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Spero, Dr. G. E.


March, S.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Stephen, Campbell


Markham, S. F.
Raynes, W. R.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Marley, J.
Richards, R.
Strauss, G. R.


Matters, L. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Maxton, James
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Melville, Sir James
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Messer, Fred
Ritson, J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Middleton, G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Tinker, John Joseph


Millar, J. D.
Romeril, H. G.
Townend, A. E.


Mills, J. E.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Montague, Frederick
Rowson, Guy
Turner, B.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Vaughan, D. J.


Morley, Ralph
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Viant, S. P.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Walker, J.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sanders, W. S.
Wallace, H. W.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sandham, E.
wallhead, Richard C.


Mort, D. L.
Sawyer, G. F.
Walters, Rt. Hon. sir J. Tudor


Moses, J. J. H.
Scrymgeour, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Scurr, John
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Sexton, James
West, F. R.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Westwood, Joseph


Murnin, Hugh
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sherwood, G. H.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Shield, George William
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Oldfield, J. R.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shillaker, J. F.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Palin, John Henry
Shinwell, E.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Palmer, E. T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Simmons, C. J.
Winterton, G. E.(Lelcester, Loughb'gh)


Perry, S. F.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wise, E. F.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wright, W. (Rutharglen)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)



Ponsonby, Arthur
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Minimum age for insurance.)

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
This is one of the most important Clauses in the whole Bill. It was very fully debated in Committee, but there are one or two salient points which must be dealt with on Report. Undoubtedly the Clause is causing considerable alarm in the country. I do not think there has been a single person who has spoken to me about politics since the Bill was first printed who has not said, "Surely you are not going to allow that Clause giving the dole to children to go through." I have to reply that, owing to the alliance between the Socialist and Liberal parties, I am afraid it probably will go through. The last time it was before the House the Liberal party abstained altogether from voting, and it will be interesting to see what they do on this occasion.
The Government themselves do not seem to know what reason there was for having a Clause of this kind at all. They have used two arguments which are incompatible. The first is that the Clause is necessary in order to round off the insurance scheme and to bridge the gap,
and the other is that there is so little unemployment among juveniles that very few will be affected. You cannot have it both ways. Perhaps on this occasion we shall get some idea as to which of those arguments is correct. We have dealt fairly fully to-day with the contribution side of the Clause. I was disappointed that the Government did not see their way to accept the last new Clause with the Schedule attached to it, because it seems ridiculous filet you should bring these children in, paying contributions which will bring something like £600,000 into the scheme, while, at the most, £150,000 worth of benefit could be paid. To that argument we have had very little, if any reply. The Clause is a little better than when it first appeared on the Paper in that it now goes a certain amount of the way towards supplying training centres. I do not know why the Minister could not accept our suggestion that training should be compulsory for people in receipt of benefit. However, the Minister has gone a certain way in that direction.
There might be some reason for bringing in a Clause of this kind if this was a genuine uninsurance scheme. On Clause after Clause we come up against this,
and practically every Amendment that has been made has taken us further away from the insurance principle. Were we now at the insurance principle for which the Bill at one time stood, what is called the one-in-six principle, there might be no objection to juveniles coming in. The amount of contribution they pay would be reflected in the amount of benefit that they could draw. But, as it is at present, it is very little else than a gigantic relief scheme. A little while ago we were discussing whether or not mothers should draw the benefit for their children, showing to what a pass unemployment insurance has come. A most important thing is that, since we first discussed Clause 1, we have completely scrapped Clause 4 and put a new Clause in its place, and the new Clause makes it even more necessary that juveniles should not be mixed up in the Employment Exchanges with the relief that is given under the new Clause, because it has now gone so far away from the old insurance principle.
The Minister has agreed that there is practically no juvenile unemployment, and full publicity should be given to the very interesting tables of figures in the minority report of the Shaftesbury Committee. They show that not only should there be no unemployment among the juveniles with whom we deal in this Clause, but that there will be a very serious shortage of juveniles to be made up, and that therefore, there can be no possible object in inserting the Clause. Even if the school age remains as it is—and we know it is to be raised to 15—there will be a shortage in 1933 of no less than 336,000, but with the raising of the school age the shortage in industry will be no less than 428,000 in 1931, rising to the great total of 762,000 in 1934. Thence it falls again to 466,000 in 1936, which shows that there will be employment for these juveniles and that there can be no object whatever in bringing them under this scheme. I was very interested in a letter from a constituent, who agreed with a Resolution passed by the local Chamber of Commerce protesting against the Bill, particularly against Clause 1 and the raising of the new rates under Clause 2. He says:
I would further quote my own experience. We employ about 25 lads in our
dairy, some just shifting empty bottle. During the whole of 1929 we have found it almost impossible to get boys of 14 or 15 years of age, although they start with slightly over Trade Board wage, i.e., £1 per week. In fact we have found we can hardly get boys of 16 years of age. This is our experience in North London and in our opinion there is very little unemployment amongst lads.
That experience of a man in industry shows exactly what is happening all over the country, that there is no unemployment, and that, when the school age is raised, there will be more difficulty still in getting juveniles than there is now. I do not think the argument brought forth in Committee, that this is a way for employers to get cheap labour, counts, because these unskilled jobs can be done only by young people for a certain time. Ultimately, they go on to other jobs. For instance, in my business boys come in from school knowing nothing of office routine. After a time, they learn a bit and go up to junior clerks and so on, and we have quite a number of people in very responsible positions drawing salaries of four figures who started as office boys. So that the idea that these people are all starting as cheap labour and that the Clause will do anything to prevent employers using young people when they can use older ones is really not sound at all.
Another argument brought forward by the right hon. Lady is that, by this Clause, after-care committees will be better able to look after the children. I cannot help thinking that that is a very poor argument for passing it, because the after-care committees can now, using the school organisation, if they are efficient follow the children for a certain time after they leave school. In well-run places like London and Birmingham something like 100 per cent. of the children are actually followed and looked after to see what happens to them when they first enter work. It is utterly absurd with the state of industry as it is, and with the unemployment figures going up, to keep on spending money on things of this kind, which are only indirectly increasing unemployment and not doing the slightest good in putting people into permanent work, which is what we want to do. The whole Bill is extremely unpopular in the country. The supporters of the party opposite think that the Government are mean because they will not give way to
the extremists, and those who are opposed to the Government think it is iniquitous that at this time, with unemployment rising as it is, and with a necessity for economy such as there never was before, doles should be made easier for people to get and should be given to children.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Clause was very fully debated, but that does not alter the fact that, of all the startling proposals in the Bill, it raises the greatest apprehension through out the country, because it is not only confined to the question of unemployment insurance, but it brings in a much more important issue, the question of the attitude of the State towards juveniles, the children who are dependent to a great extent on our legislation. Hon. Members opposite are in the forefront in education Debates on this question of the provision of proper training for children and seeing that their interests are properly looked after. But who can support that view in this Bill? They are making the same mistake as they did when they were so loud in their condemnation of the Trade Disputes Bill, against which they said they were going to rouse the whole country. If they think they have the country behind them in this piece of legislation there is a great disillusion waiting for them outside these four walls, because nothing more unpopular has been brought forward by any Government for a long time. It is not only political unpopularity. People who vote for all three parties are greatly disturbed at this kind of legislation being brought in. Hon. Members opposite know the slang expression that a thing is as easy as stealing candy from a kid. That is exactly what the right hon. Lady is engaged in doing. As a rule, you give them in exchange a cigarette card, but they are getting nothing out of this.
I call it a monstrous imposition on the young people to bring in legislation of this kind. It is not sufficient to say, when we have brought forward Amendments, that if you are going to bring juveniles into the unemployment insurance scheme, you cannot make a separate scheme for them because you must only have one scheme and must make the good risks carry the bad. The party opposite are now contemplating extending unem-
ployment insurance to agriculture, and they are proposing, or we are much mistaken, to make a different scheme, therefore the argument falls to the ground that you cannot make different terms for this risk. However much the argument is put forward that it is merely part of the whole scheme, the party opposite cannot get away from the impression which they are giving in the country that it is a mean piece of business. It is not even as though the Bill is being supported from the point of view of being any insurance scheme, and that therefore it must be an actuarially sound insurance scheme. We have got far away from that point of view. These arguments are denounced when they are brought forward on this side of the House, but they are brought forward by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they want to resist an Amendment of a different type.
One of the most extraordinary things during the Debate on this Clause has been, that while the most important consideration is an educational one, the one person who ought to have spoken from the Front Bench has been qualifying for the role of hero in a serial of romance as the strong, silent man—the President of the Board of Education. There are many considerations in this Clause. In the first, place, there is the financial question, and we have not heard a word from the Treasury. In the second place, there are the legal aspects of the Measure, and in regard to his only intervention in Debate in that connection, I am sure the learned Attorney-General will, with heartfelt feelings, say, "I am sorry I spoke." Because if anyone has cut a sorry figure in having to take up a position and then withdrawing from it, it has been the learned Attorney-General. We have not had a word from the Minister primarily concerned with the question on which this Clause has a bearing. In fact, the only Ministerial occupant of the Front Bench who has obtained any satisfaction out of the Measure so far has been the Minister of Agriculture. He has seen gradually, with his born outlook for live stock, the sheep separating themselves from the goats on his own benches; and when they are in difficulties they are helped out by patient oxen on the opposite benches below the Gangway.
I do not want to allow this Clause to go—we shall divide on it, I trust—with-
out emphasising these two points. We are in the House of Commons with a trusteeship on behalf of the young people of this country. [Interruption.] Yes, and we are betraying that trusteeship in this Measure. In the second place, it affects vitally the whole question of the education of the children of this country, and yet we have not heard a word from those primarily responsible for guiding that education. For those reasons, I want to offer my severest protest against this Clause.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): Whether it is true or not that this Clause is unpopular in the country, there is one thing about it which is certain. It does something which those who are most concerned about adolescent life in this country have felt to be necessary for many years, and which has been expressed by the various committees that have sat upon these matters—the Malcolm Committee, the Salvesen Committee and various other committees. Apart from what these committees have said, there can be no one concerned with the welfare of the youth of this country who has not at some time felt great misgivings as to the serious results likely to follow the gap between the age at which boys and girls leave school and the age when they obtain work. The hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain A. Hudson), who moved the Amendment, took the line that there was not going to be very much unemployment as far as these boys and girls are concerned. As a matter of fact, that is not a true state of affairs as regards certain areas in the country. Those of us who know what are called the black areas realise that not the least lamentable of the conditions which have prevailed in those areas has been the sight of boys and girls leaving school and becoming subject to no control beyond the parental control. While the youths of from 16 to 18 years of age could be taken into a training centre, nothing could be done for those under 16.
I was charged with saying at an earlier stage in these Debates that one of the things that employers had done in the past was to take advantage of the position to get cheap labour. I make no charge against employers in that respect.
I certainly did say what was true, that in the black areas, which some of us know quite well, this new industrial revolution, which is gradually working its way to other parts of the country, has had the same effect as the old industrial revolution, and that children have actually been supplanting their fathers at some of the works. What is contemplated in this Bill in connection with the raising of the school age, the establishment of training centres, and the insurance of these boys and girls, will have the effect, to some extent, at any rate, of saving these young people from that condition of things. There has been a very wide and detailed discussion of these matters and the Minister has given full effect, as she indicated in her Second Reading speech, to her desire to give the warmest consideration to Amendments which might be moved. That point of view has been expressed in the new Clause which has been moved in order to make sure, as far as possible, that boys and girls shall be brought into the training centres.
I do not wish to continue this Debate at any length because it is necessary that we should obtain the Third Reading of this Bill to-night, but in referring to the question of contributions and the amount that is to be paid in benefit as a result of these boys' and girls' contributions, and for which we make no apology, we are prepared to accept any unpopularity that there may be in respect of this matter. The hon. Gentleman opposite has said that this Bill is unpopular. I have not heard that it is unpopular in the country generally. Personally, it has not been my experience to encounter any protest. What are the facts? My right hon. Friend stated a fact which was not noted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, namely, that, at any rate, from 16 to 18 the contributions were the same as they had been in the previous Act. Even with regard to boys and girls coming in at 15, is it a crime that we should insure good lives? The same principle is being carried out as is carried out in regard to any other insurance scheme. Is it a crime to ask that boys and girls, the strong men and women of the future, should pay contributions in readiness for the time when they will be subject to unemployment and the ills connected with that particular aspect of industrial life? The main point put by the hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney—and this was
not even mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies)—that unemployment is not prevalent to any extent among adolescents, cannot generally be substantiated. In certain given areas you get large numbers, and sometimes the bulk, of the boys and girls, unemployed. The House must remember that what is happening in three or four of the areas in given industries, may easily be possible all over the country in years to come, in view of the great changes which are coming to pass. I say that there is no more necessary thing in the life of this country than to make quite sure, as this Government are doing—if I expressed myself personally, I would say that it ought to have been done much sooner—that steps will be taken for the training and supervision of boys leaving school.

Mr. E. BROWN: I cannot forbear saying two things. The hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain A. Hudson) and the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank) referred to the fact that Members of this party did not vote on the Committee stage in respect of Clause 1. I hope that when they speak again they will go a little further than that. This Clause has to be read in conjunction with another Clause, a Clause which, in my judgment, will be very valuable in the interests of all who have the educational welfare of the children at heart. This Clause was put down by the Minister as a result, not as the hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney said of "Us," but as a result of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) moved from these benches. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the reason why our party did not vote for the Clause on the Committee stage was because we were not satisfied with the statement made by the Minister, as there was no arrangement made for an extension of the training of young people. I cannot help commenting also on the two speeches which we have just heard. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough was much more careful than the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Hackney, who said that the thing is unpopular in the country. I do not agree. What is unpopular is what certain views papers have made of the phrase contained in the last sentence of the speech
of the hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney—"doles to children." They cannot have it both ways. The hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil cannot say that it is like taking candy away from the children and his hon. and gallant Friend protest vehemently against doles for children. They may choose which headline they like, but they cannot run both headlines on the same day in the same Debate and on the same Clause. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman adopts the use of metaphor and refers to the right hon. and hon. Members opposite as sheep and goats, and to us as patient oxen, I cannot help reminding him that in the last Division half his party was absent. May we, therefore, come to the conclusion that the wild asses are quenching their thirst in the South of France?

Major DAVIES: The hon. Member asks me, and I will give him a reply. The answer is: "Absence makes the heart grow fonder."

Mr. BROWN: I am glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not object to the metaphor. We know that he recognises his friends even when they are absent. This Clause has been asked for owing to an alteration in the school age. There would have been a gap of a year and a very awkward gap between 15 and 16 years of age. When people talk about the thing being unpopular, they mean what people are taught by headlines to believe is unpopular. I met a man the other day who was protesting against doles for children. I said, "Where are they?" He said: "The Government are going to pay doles to boys of 15." I pointed out that if a boy left school on his 15th birthday and went to work the very next day, the earliest time he could draw the dole would be at the end of 30 contribution weeks, plus six days' waiting period. He said; "I did not know that; that makes a great deal of difference." The fact that the right hon. Lady met the desires of those who want an extension of training, such as the training that is now going on in Edinburgh, by arrangement between the Department of Education and the Ministry of Labour, means that our objections to the inclusion of children of 15 in the insurance scheme falls to the ground. While it is true that because the Minister did not meet our views on the Committee stage we did not vote for Clause 1, I
have no doubt whatever of the course that I shall adopt to-day. I shall vote for the Clause with great pleasure.

Earl WINTERTON: It is a well-known fact that no one is so prone to fanaticism as the convert, and those of us who have seen the gradual change of view of the deputy Leader of the Liberal party, after his own support of his Leader in opposition to this Clause, and have seen the change come about in which he has seen salvation, both material and moral, in the party opposite, are not surprised that he should have given the most vigorous defence of this Clause which hat, fallen from any hon. Member.

Mr. BROWN: Will the noble Lord be surprised to hear that this is the first time I have expressed any opinion on this Clause?

Earl WINTERTON: I should have said, "on this Bill." I used the word "Clause" in error. I may say a word about the deputy Leader and the real Leader of the Liberal party at a later stage. I should like to confine myself for the moment to what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with this very important part of the Bill. No one on this side of the House imputes anything but the most sincere motives to hon. and right hon. Members opposite in bringing forward this Clause. It is inconceivable that they can be anything but sincere, because they must realise that, from the electoral point of view, it would be hard to have brought forward a Clause likely to have been of less benefit to them. The small number of parents who, through their children, will benefit from this Clause are situated in the most depressed areas of the country, which already return Socialist Members to Parliament. In the great majority of districts where no benefits will accrue to boys and girls of 15 from the contributions which they will have to pay, for the simple reason that there is no unemployment amongst them, the Government will have at the next General Election one of the most damaging cries that has faced any party for a long time. It will be said: "You are taking contributions from our boys and girls of 15, and you know there is no unemployment." Therefore, no one on this side of the House will deny that hon. and right hon. Mem-
bers opposite are sincere in bringing forward this Clause. Every defence of the Clause which has been made to-day, whether by the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary or others, has shown its great unwisdom from the point of view not only of insurance and of industry but, most of all, from the point of view of the boys and girls who will be affected by it.
What are our main objections to the Clause? In the comparatively few areas where there is juvenile unemployment the boy and girl will, on leaving school, be discouraged to some extent from going away from what, in most cases, are hopelessly depressed areas, where the labour market is hopelessly overcrowded, and where the chance of a boy and girl getting a decent livelihood are at least 50 per cent. less than in other parts of the country or in the Dominions. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary denies that there are such areas. He has said that there are areas where bays and girls have no chance of permanent employment. Is it a good thing that at the very earliest age when they enter industry and when they become unemployed they should be paid benefit and he thereby to some extent discouraged from going elsewhere? The Parliamentary Secretary made a very strange reference to this matter. He said that there were cases where boys in these areas had undesirable—I think he said undesirable—occupations. He said that they are doing jobs which had formerly been done by their fathers. If these jobs are beyond their physical and mental capacity or if they are being sweated in these jobs, then most certainly they ought not to be doing them, but I cannot see in what way this Clause will prevent that.
If, on the other hand, it means that by the use of machinery a job which was formerly done by a man can now be managed by a boy, so much the better for the industrial efficiency of the country. What we want is better machinery in this country, like they have in America, where the proportion of the average amount of man-power to machinery is one to three compared with this country. One cannot, however, discuss that matter on this Clause, and I only referred to it because the Parliamentary Secretary brought in the subject. I do not know what the undesirable jobs are, but if they exist, the Clause will do nothing to prevent any-
thing that is undesirable. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that the education proposals of the Government would affect this point. That may or may not be so. We are a very long way from those proposals. They have not yet appeared in the from of a Bill, and we do not know whether they will get through the House. In any case, they will not come into operation for more than a year.
The second reason why we object to this Clause is that it will involve an injustice, in that boys and girls who are employed in insurable trades in many districts where unemployment amongst juveniles is so negligible as to be almost non-existent, will pay contributions towards a scheme that cannot benefit them as boys and girls. The Parliamentary Secretary admits that, and he will know even more strongly in the future how unpopular that proposal will be. He tried to get out of the difficulty by making a appeal to people to look at insurance as one scheme; to look at insurance as a whole. He said that just as in life insurance and accident insurance you must expect at the younger and healthier ages to pay in order to obtain advantages lox those of an older age, so they must look upon this scheme. His analogy is not correct. Before I took office in the Coalition Government I was a director of a very large insurance company doing business of all kinds all over the world, and I have been astonished at some of the comparisons which have been sought to be made in this Debate between this type of insurance and ordinary insurance. When a man or a woman insures his or her life or insures against accident they insure on a basis which can be shown by actuarial examination to be, on the whole, a reasonable one from the point of view of risk both to the insurance company and to the individual. I submit that in the case of juvenile insurance, taking the insurance at the age of 15 to 16, which is all we are concerned with in this Clause, the premium which you are asking the boys and girls to pay is absurdly out of proportion to the risk which they are going to undergo in all but very few districts of this country. That can be proved by actuarial experience.

Mr. TOWNEND: Is it not a fact that in all insurance the good life pays for the bad life?

Earl WINTERTON: No one will admit that that is so, least of all anyone who has been a director of an insurance company. [Interruption.] Nothing that I say need be a cause of derision. Assuming that the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) has made a correct statement, then all life insurance and accident insurance is wrong. I should he very sorry to hear it stated on the other side of the House, among responsible Members, that they admit the principle that in life insurance or in any other form of recognised insurance the risks of the bad lives are taken by the good lives. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Of course not. The only answer is that they do not accept them—the bad lives. The premium which is being asked from the boys and girls is out of all proportion to the risks which are going to be undertaken in all but very few districts, and it is contrary to every recognised insurance principle. A good many figures, have been mentioned in this Debate. Let me mention some. We have instances in the south of England which will confirm what I have just said. In my own constituency, where I have an electorate of 70,000 people, there is a town with an insured population of 12,000 or 13,000 persons. All through the bad years, from the year 1921 onwards, the total unemployment amongst that population has never been higher than 3 per cent. and has often been as low as 2 per cent. while unemployment amongst boys and girls is absolutely non-existent. In fact, boys and girls are brought in from other districts to undertake employment. Is it right that in an area like that, which is only one of a huge district, where there is very little unemployment and where there is no unemployment amongst juveniles, the boys and girls should have to pay contributions in order to support children of those ages in the depressed areas?

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: It is a common risk.

Earl WINTERTON: Why should there be this compulsion on my constituents, without their receiving one penny in return?

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: It is a common risk.

6.0 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: Because the hon. Member has said that two or three
times, it does not make it more truthful. As a result of industrial conditions which have long past away, there is in some parts of England and Scotland a hopeless surplus of labour which every impartial authority, including the Transference Board, has again and again stated is never likely to get permanent employment in those districts, and the sons and daughters of these people can have no permanent employment in those districts, because there is a surplus of labour, a condition which is likely to continue. If I thought for one moment that this Clause was going to solve the problem of the depressed areas, then by all means I would say to my constituents or to anyone else in the South of England: "You must bear your share as members of a great country by submitting to this charge, in order to cure this state of affairs"; but does anyone suggest for a moment that this Clause will cure that state of affairs? It will have exactly the opposite effect. It will remove to some extent one of the incentives for these people to go and seek employment in districts where there is some chance of getting it. It is not the amount of money that is involved, but the principle. I must say that I am astonished at the attitude of the Liberal party. If ever there was a Clause where the question of the old-fashioned ideal of self-reliance and self-help comes into review, it is on this Clause. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who has been conspicuously absent from the Committee and Report stages, in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill led us to believe that he was deeply opposed to this and the next Clause. He thoroughly earned the plaudits which the Press delights to shower upon him, that in a rather dull House of Commons he alone stands out as one who by his eloquence and his experience can put a case in the most forcible, vigorous and illuminating manner. We were all deeply impressed by the speech. Hon. Members opposite did not agree with him. We on this side agreed with his criticisms of the Bill, and were surprised that he did not follow them up. How feeble has been the aftermath of that speech as far as the right hon. Gentleman and his party are concerned! How different from what the
right hon. Gentleman can do if he really follows up a policy! Some of us remember the days when he made vigorous attacks upon the dukes. He got a certain amount of fun out the dukes, but he would get far more fun out of the present Government if he really started upon them. It is true that a proportion of the dukes were at home in the saddle rather than in the senate, but I have never seen a Government or supporters of any Government who rise so easily to the simplest fly thrown over to them as do the present Government and its supporters. It is a real misfortune that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs should again and again make speeches on Second Reading threatening opposition, bring forward arguments which he alone is able to do so admirably, and then when it comes to real discussion in Committee and on Report leave the Opposition to the deputy-leader of the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). The comparison between the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the hon. Member for Leith is really almost too pathetic to mention, and we have a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman that in future, when he comes down on a Second Reading and makes such a speech he should at any rate follow it up by voting in the Committee and Report stages against a Clause to which he objects.
The gravamen of our charge against this Clause is that as far as the majority of the districts are concerned it is an impost, a most unfair tax, upon the employers and employed, which by no system of insurance can be justified. To those districts to which the Bill applies it is thoroughly bad in principle, and will instil into the minds of recruits to the industrial army, at their most plastic and impressionable age, the notion that unlike the young Canadians, unlike the young Frenchmen, unlike the young Americans, they will find in this country an institution, a benevolent old gentleman called the State, who will always come to their aid whenever they are in trouble from the start of their careers to the end. That is not the attitude of mind in young men in other countries starting out to earn their livelihood. They have not got the State behind them. It is bad for the morale of the boys and girls of this country. The less ambitious will argue that there is not the least need for any effort on their part. In other countries they are
taught to rely upon themselves throughout life. Hon. Members opposite, I know, hold that the spirit of competitive emulation and ambition is bad, that the worst thing you can have is competition. But it was by those methods that the greatness of this country was built up, and we must, from the start of their careers when they are of an impressionable age, teach our young people to believe that they must get on by their own vigorous and unaided efforts.

Mr. BEAUMONT: This is the first contribution I have made to the Debates on this Bill, and I would not have prolonged the argument had it not been for the continued absence of the President of the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman has just come into the House, and I will withdraw the words "continuous absence" and substitute the words "continuous silence." I also intervene in the Debate because of the speech of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). To my mind he very nearly put his finger on the crux of the whole thing. He talked about hon. Members wanting to have it both ways. It is not hon. Members on this side who want to have it both ways. It is the Government. Either there is going to be juvenile unemployment after the raising of the school age or there is not. If there is, we contend that this Clause is not the way to deal with it. In the Debate on education the President of the Board of Education made use of a phrase which found agreement on all sides of the House. He said that a poor school is better than the most sanitary coal pit. Apparently, it is not better than the best Employment Exchange. We on this side contend that if you are going to spend money on remedying juvenile unemployment, it will be much better to spend it in giving increased educational facilities. If, on the other hand, there is not going to be juvenile unemployment there can be only one justification for the Clause, and that is that it will swell the Fund. In that case you are taking from children money from which they are to get no benefit. One of these things must be true. We say that this Clause is grossly unfair to the children of this country, and we propose to oppose it in the Division Lobby.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for
the question which arose out of the interruption made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) when the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) was speaking. In his view, in all systems of insurance the good life pays for the bad. Although I do not pretend to speak with the authority of a director of an insurance company, I would point out that that interruption shows that the hon. Member who made it has completely missed the whole point we are making about the contributions of young persons. There is all the difference between a voluntary and a compulsory system of insurance. In a voluntary system a person who enters as a good life does so of his own free will and stands exactly the same risk as a bad life. He does so because he considers he runs the same risk as a bad life. But in a compulsory system of insurance, such as you have under this Bill, you are dragging in people who do not run the same risks in order to reinforce the Fund by their contributions. As long as a compulsory scheme is mixed up with a voluntary scheme, there is no possible opportunity of realising the objections we make against the inclusion of young persons for the sole purpose of strengthening the Fund by contributions from their wages.
The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), in the course of his speech, described his conversion to this Bill. He said that in his view his objections to this Clause were largely removed by the extent to which the Minister has accepted Amendments moved by his party and the Amendment which I had the honour to move, making it a condition for the payment of benefit to young persons that they should receive some sort of training, The only remark I have to make upon that is that the hon. Member for Leith is more easily pleased than I am, because the words now in the Bill providing that training are by no means as satisfactory, as definite, or as positive as he and I would like to see. It only says that the training shall be provided where practicable. The whole point of hon. Members below the Gangway in their Amendment was to put in the Bill a provision that it shall be made practicable in all cases where benefit is paid. I doubt whether the hon. Member's conversion is justified by the words in the Bill. The hon. Member also described a conversation he had with an erstwhile opponent of the
Measure, and he said that when he pointed out that a man had to work 30 weeks before he got unemployment benefit, his opponent was completely vanquished, withdrew his opposition, and no doubt said that he would vote for the hon. Member for Leith at the next election. I am sure the fact that his opponent lives in London is the only reason which prevents him from voting for the hon. Member. I doubt whether his interlocutor was as well seized of the Bill as he should have been, because if he had looked at Clause 11 he would find that it is possible for a lad if he remains at school for an extra year to be credited with 20 contributions. All he has to do is to come out of school, take up a blind alley occupation for 10 weeks, and, with the aid of his credited contributions, draw unemployment benefit for 18 months. That is the class of case which should largely influence this House and the hon. Member for Leith. I am doubtful whether his conversion is as well justified as it should be.
The whole object of our opposition as far as I can understand it—[Interruption]—and speaking for myself is this: I know that hon. Members of all parties sometimes speak without authority. I was much moved by the very eloquent appeal made by the Minister of Labour on the Second Reading of the Bill, in which she uttered a well-timed warning and an appeal to the mothers of these young people asking them to encourage their children to go abroad in search of work, to go to other districts in search of work, and not to give full effect to that natural homesickness which is so often found in children and which is often very much encouraged by mothers from quite natural reasons. That appeal loses a great deal of its power when in those districts and areas in which you find juvenile unemployment you are actually making it worth while, in money, to the mothers to keep their children at home when they should be going into more prosperous districts and working out a career for themselves. It is no use appealing to the emotions when at the same time you place a monetary consideration in exactly the opposite direction. It discountenances the eloquent appeal of the Minister. I take the view that this Clause will encourage blind-alley occupations, which is the very last
thing into which we want to see the young people of this country going. You are making it worth while for a boy to take up, for instance, the job of selling chocolates at a railway station, or some such job, so that he can qualify himself for unemployment benefit. If we were sure that he would get training when drawing benefit it would be different, but what about the large parts of the country where the Minister will say that that is not practicable? You will have a rush for blind-alley occupations, and considerable damage will be done to the prospects of these young people working out a decent career for themselves.

Mr. COVE: I want to take up the point of the last speaker, that this Clause would encourage children to take up blind-alley occupations. As a matter of fact the whole scheme, to my mind, will prevent that, and in the distressed areas the very fact that the scheme provides for the crediting of contributions to the Insurance Fund will be the greatest incentive to the young people to remain at school. Therefore they will get the necessary educational training which will remove the need for going into blind-alley occupations. I am supporting this scheme as an educational Measure. We have the great weight of educational opinion behind the insurance of these children.

Duchess of ATHOLL: The hon. Member forgets the very weighty signatures of the Minority Report of the English Advisory Council representing the opinion of the great majority of the education authorities.

Mr. COVE: With all due respect I do not accept the words of the Noble Lady as correct. If she will look she will find that the representatives undoubtedly of the National Union of Teachers agreed with it, and that the representatives of by far the majority of the local administrators accepted and recommended this.

Duchess of ATHOLL: The Minority Report of the Advisory Council for England was signed on behalf of the Executive of the Association of Education Committees and the Association of Municipal Corporations.

Mr. COVE: While I believe that Mr. Graham and Mr. Spurley Hey signed, as a matter of fact if the Noble Lady will make further investigation she will find that the Director of Education for
London, Mr. Gater, who is also a member of this body, and Mr. Kenrick, who comes from Birmingham, also signed.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Those signatories expressly said that they signed only as individuals.

Mr. COVE: If the Noble Lady will still pursue her investigations she will find that there is no opposition from the organised bodies of education authorities up and down the country, except in so far as it was expressed without the recent authority of the executive of that body. I say frankly that I support this scheme as an educational Measure. I join with the rest of those representing the teachers and the education authorities in asking for the insurance age to be lowered on conditions. One of the main conditions was that attendance at school should give credit for insurance benefit. Take my own constituency, which is a distressed area. If hon. Members opposite had their policy carried into effect what would happen? They want to have the whip of starvation to drive these children into blind-alley occupations. They want to see a young lad without any income, without anything from anywhere. They call it initiative. And that in places where unemployment is rampant! If you have an illimitable fund of initiative the boy would not be able to get a job.
The scheme will take these lads and will encourage them to remain in their schools, because they will be given credit under this scheme, and they will get training, though not the training that they would receive in Juvenile Training Centres, because those Centres cannot give what educationists call training. That is admitted by the Malcolm Committee and by every Committee that has examined the problem. They say of the juvenile centres that, the most they can do is to save the juveniles from the worst. What does this scheme do? It says, "We will encourage these children to remain in the ordinary educational system." [HON. MEMBERS: "Secondary."] Yes, secondary. It will encourage the boys to remain in the secondary school, because they will get credit for remaining in the school. In this scheme you have an encouragement of training within the ordinary educational system. Hence I can go boldly before educationists and say, "This is a good scheme." Hon. Members opposite
are using two arguments. First of all they say, "You are demoralising the children." Then they say, "You are making money out of it." Neither of those statements is true.
The Malcolm Committee examined this problem and they took up the argument which I have heard from hon. Members opposite—that you are making money out of the children. If hon. Members will look at page 68 of the Report they will find that the Malcolm Committee made an extensive examination of that question and they say that the statement is not correct. As a matter of fact they state, in effect, "You must regard the insurance as a whole and remember that these children are laying up for themselves future benefits when inevitably they become unemployed." The demoralisation is not in receiving benefits, but in the unemployment created by the capitalist system. If we are going to save these children from demoralisation one of the best things to do is to give them a few shillings in their pocket for their mothers to feed them and clothe them and care for them.
On this question of demoralisation hon. Members opposite are merely talking to the headline Press that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). If they will look at the Report again they will see that that question was examined. The Committee state that they find no evidence at all of demoralisation. There was an investigation carried out by the Ministry of Labour and recorded here. They say that the investigation shows that there is no demoralisation as far as the children of 16 and 17 are concerned. I do not want to detain the House, but I did want to get up and say quite definitely and specifically that the overwhelming bulk of educational opinion is in favour of this Clause. Teachers, administrators, those people who have been interested in the social welfare of youth, all say that this is a necessary step, that it is the best step in the interests of the children. It certainly is not only an insurance Measure, but is also a valuable step as far as education is concerned. I said during the Committee stage that if the Liberal party wanted to help forward this movement I would be with them in the next step, which is to get a Fisher Education Act, with its continuation
schools. Then we should have a sound, established and permanent system for these children, not in the juvenile unemployment centres, but a permanent system of—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going beyond the Clause that is before the House.

Mr. COVE: I am sorry to have been led astray. I am supporting this Clause because I see its present and its future educational value to the Children.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I had no intention of intervening, and I do not propose to detain the House more than a few minutes, but the statement made by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is so amazing that I am bound to endeavour to reply. I do not propose to follow him in what he said on what is now Clause 10, because we are discussing Clause 1; but I think that the House cannot be too clear as to the complete inaccuracy of what the hon. Gentleman has said as to this Clause being supported by an overwhelming majority of educational opinion, including teachers and administrators. I can only say that if the hon. Member sticks to that statement he simply has not read the Report, because it is made absolutely clear there that those who signed the Majority Report approving of the lowering of the insurance age were signing only in their individual capacities—an extremely significant reservation. If we examine the composition of the Council we see that everyone there is put on in some representative capacity or other, either as representing local education authorities or the employers or the trade unions or the teaching profession. While it is true that we find the signatures of well known teachers appended to the Majority Report, we have to remember that those are individual signatures with the others, and when we come to representatives of the local education authorities, though there are some well known signatures there, again they are merely individual signatures. That is a very significant matter in the case, for instance, of the gentleman who has been mentioned, the Education Secretary of the London Education Committee. He signed only in his individual capacity, in spite of the fact that he was representing that great education authority.

Mr. HARRIS: He did not go on that Council in a representative capacity, but purely as a private individual. That should be made clear.

Duchess of ATHOLL: But that does not get us away from the fact that his signature is an individual signature. Against that we have to set the signatures of one of the Minority Reports. There is a report signed by the employers, and another Minority Report, giving very strong reasons against the lowering of the age of insurance, is signed by well known Directors of Education in their representative capacity. It is well known, and it has already been stated in the Debates on this Bill, that this Minority Report has been endorsed by the Executive of the Association of Education Committees in England and Wales, and since the Bill was introduced also by the Association of Municipal Corporations. Therefore no statement could be more utterly untrue and misleading than that made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove).

Mr. COVE: indicated dissent.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am merely quoting the facts set forth in the Report, and the findings that have been made public, of the bodies to which I have referred. Even the teachers' representatives are not unanimously in favour of the Majority Report. The Association of Principals in Technical Institutes and other associations also signed the Minority Report. I appeal to the President of the Board of Education whether he can accept the statement made by the hon. Member that the overwhelming majority of educational opinion is in favour of this Clause. How can he as Minister possibly ignore the Report that has been endorsed by those two very important bodies representing administrators in education? They are the two principal educational bodies with which he has to deal; and therefore he has against him, in supporting this Clause, the weight of the representative opinion of the administrators of education. In regard to the signatures of the teachers attached to the Majority Report, I think the hon. Member for Aberavon probably knows that one well-known member of the profession, or retired member of the profession, who signed the Report was prevented by ill-health from taking any share in the deliberations of
the council. Therefore, that signature has not the value which we should have attached to it in happier circumstances. I appeal to the President of the Board of Eudcation to make it clear that he cannot allow the statement of his own supporter to pass, that the weight of educational opinion is in favour of the Clause, when he must know too well that the whole strength of the associations of education administrators is against it and that they have expressed their strong opinion in favour of the Minority Report.

Mr. HARRIS: I confess I am surprised to hear the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) trying to depreciate the value of a Majority Report. I know that in these days the value of a majority is often discounted, and, as the representative of a minority in this House, I rather like to feel that the minority is more important than the majority. But in this case we find that 19 members were in favour of this recommendation, which is a majority of something like three to one, and I do not know what larger majority could be desired in a matter of this kind. When I saw this Clause in its original form, I was nervous, because one very important condition was laid down in connection with the lowering of the age of insurance, making the provision dependent upon attendance at a juvenile instruction centre, and the right hon. Lady the Minister saw difficulties in the way of finding words to satisfy that condition. Those difficulties have been overcome, and the very skilful Clause which was moved by the Minister as the first of the new Clauses entirely satisfies that condition. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) that this Clause is not the end of all things. We move slowly, but this is a, step in the right direction, and the insertion of this condition will bring nearer a system of compulsory continuation schools. That is our ideal and our aim, but in the meantime this Clause, with the provision requiring attendance at training centres as a condition of the right to receive benefit, inevitably brings closer to us that better system which they have in Germany and other countries. At the present time in London there is an actual shortage of juvenile labour. There are 4,000 positions which have been notified by the Employment Exchanges, and which cannot be filled,
and, at any rate in the South of England, we are not going to have a great number of young people—

Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask the hon. Member if he thinks that this Bill from an educational point of view is going to make it easier to raise the school age to 16 or—

Mr. COVE: Get your party to raise it.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is your pledge.

Mr. HARRIS: I would not like to say that, but the more you educate and bring forward public opinion, the nearer you will be to that ideal. It is not for me to say so, perhaps, but if the Noble Lady would show the same energy outside the House as she shows inside the House, she could do much to help on that happy day, and her first business is to convert her own friends.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am sure the hon. Member will not mind me saying that I have always fought for raising the school age in my constituency, and the Labour party went round the back streets telling the people that I was going to keep their children at school. That is the humbug of that whole party.

Mr. HARRIS: Charity commences at home, and so does education. The Noble Lady ought to put her own house in order, and convert her own friends, and then a united House of Commons could agree to raise the age still further. In the meantime, our business is to pass this Clause. I believe that by bringing these young persons under control and supervision, we shall be better able to guide them and we shall, as I say, make a step forward.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: So much has been said about the weight to be attached to the majority report that I cannot help reminding hon. Members opposite of one of the conditions attached to those signatures, a condition which has not been fulfilled:
Attendance at a Junior Instruction Centre or an alternative approved course of instruction should be normally a condition for the receipt of unempoyment benefit by all juveniles under 18.
So that the argument of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) falls. There is another remarkable passage in the report of the Advisory Council. The
hon. Member claimed that the whole weight of educational authority was in favour of the Clause. Mr. Spurley Hey, Director of Education in Manchester, and one of our leading authorities on educational matters, signed the Minority Report, and here is what he says:
During the last six months I have circularised the 267 education committees which are members of the Association (the Association of Education Committees) requesting their views on the proposal in order that I might the more correctly represent their present views on the proposal. Of those who gave a definite decision a large majority was in favour of the Working Certificate, and against lowering the age of unemployment insurance.

Mr. COVE: Can the hon. Member tell us the number of replies? If two out of three gave replies in favour there would be a large majority. As a matter of fact my information, direct from the source, is that they did not know what the Director of Education for Manchester was really asking.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I think we may trust Mr. Spurley Hey to put his ques-

tion quite clearly. In face of these facts it is difficult for hon. Members opposite to maintain that the weight of education authority is in favour of the Clause. From an educational point of view I consider it unsound, and I feel surprised that one who has done so much in the cause of education as the hon. Member for Aberavon should defend it. He has rightly said that continuation at school is an advantage. It is an advantage and a privilege, but then he goes on to say that the children and their parents should be bribed to accept the privilege. That I hold to be fundamentally unsound from an educational point of view. By this Clause you introduce into the minds of the children a pauperising effect, and for that reason, and also because it is a mean Clause, which takes out of the pockets of the children a large amount of money in order to benefit the fund, I utterly oppose it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'later,' in line 15, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 156.

Division No. 101.]
AYES.
[6.41 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Chafer, Daniel
Groves, Thomas E.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Church, Major A. G.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Clarke, J. S.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Alpass, J. H.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Ammon, Charles George
Cove, William G.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Angell, Norman
Daggar, George
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Arnott, John
Dallas, George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Aske, Sir Robert
Dalton, Hugh
Hardie, George D.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Harris, Percy A.


Ayles, Walter
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Day, Harry
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Devlin, Joseph
Haycock, A. W.


Barnes, Alfred John
Dickson, T.
Hayes, John Henry


Bellamy, Albert
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Dukes, C.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Duncan, Charles
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Ede, James Chuter
Herriotts, J.


Benson, G.
Edmunds, J. E.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hoffman. P. C.


Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hollins, A.


Birkett, W. Norman
Egan, W. H.
Hopkin, Daniel


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Elmley, Viscount
Horrabin, J. F.


Bowen, J. W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Foot, Isaac
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Isaacs, George


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bromfield, William
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bromley, J.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Johnston, Thomas


Brothers, M.
Gill, T. H.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Glassey, A. E.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gosling, Harry
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gossling, A. G.
Kelly, W. T.


Burgess, F. G.
Gould, F.
Kennedy, Thomas


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kinley, J.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Granville, E.
Knight, Holtord


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Gray, Milner
Lathan, G.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Cameron, A. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' w.)
Lawrence, Susan


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Lawson, John James
Palin, John Henry
Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghiey)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Paling, Wilfrid
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Leach, W.
Palmer, E. T.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Lees, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Sorensen, R.


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Longden, F.
Pole, Major D. G.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Stephen, Campbell


Lowth, Thomas
Potts, John S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Lunn, William
Price, M. P.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Pybus, Percy John
Strauss, G. R.


Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Sutton, J. E.


McEntee, V. L.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Mackinder, W.
Raynes, W. R.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


MacLaren, Andrew
Richards, R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


McShane, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Thurtle, Ernest


Mansfield, W.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tillett, Ben


March, S.
Ritson, J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Marcus, M.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Tout, W. J.


Markham, S. F.
Romeril, H. G.
Townend, A. E


Marley, J.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Matters, L. W.
Rowson, Guy
Turner, B.


Maxton, James
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Vaughan, D. J.


Melville, Sir James
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Vlant, S. P.


Messer, Fred
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Walker, J.


Middleton, G.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Wallace, H. w.


Millar, J. D.
Sanders, W. S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Mills, J. E.
Sandham, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Montague, Frederick
Sawyer, G. F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Scrymgeour, E.
West, F. R.


Morley, Ralph
Scurr, John
Westwood, Joseph


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sexton, James
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Mort, D. L.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Moses, J. J. H.
Sherwood, G. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Shield, George William
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Muggeridge, H. T.
Shillaker, J. F.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Murnin, Hugh
Shinwell, E.
Wise, E. F.


Naylor, T. E.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Simmons, C. J.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Oldfield, J. R.
Sinkinson, George



Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Smith, Ben (Sermondsey, Rotherhithe)



NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Christie, J. A.
Graham. Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Astor, Viscountess
Colfox, Major William Philip
Greene, W. p. Crawford


Atholl, Duchess of
Colville, Major D. J,
Grenfell, Edward C, (City of London)


Atkinson, C.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Cranbourne, Viscount
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon, Stanley (Bewdley)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hartington, Marquess of


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cunlifle-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Beaumont, M. W.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Berry, Sir George
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hurd, Percy A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Iveagh, Countess of


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Boyce, H. L.
Eden, Captain Anthony
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Bracken, B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Briscoe, Richard George
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fielden, E. B.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Butler, R. A.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Long, Major Eric


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lymington, Viscount


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macquisten, F. A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A
Gower, Sir Robert
Maitland, A. (Kent, Favereham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Grace, John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.




Marjoribanks, E. C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Mond, Hon. Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Tinne, J. A.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Salmon, Major I.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Muirhead, A. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dtworth, Putney)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Sassoon. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Savery, s. S.
Werrender, Sir Victor


O'Neill, Sir H.
Skelton, A. N.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wells, Sydney R.


Peake, Capt. Osbert
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Somerset, Thomas
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Power, Sir John Cecil
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Purbrick, R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ramsbotham, H.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur



Remer, John R.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Captain Margesson and Sir George Penny.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out from the word "date," to the word "an," in line 16, and to insert instead thereof the words "earlier than the date on which."
On the Committee stage a question was put as to the drafting of the Clause from the point of view of the age of entry into insurance, and the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) raised the point that under the Clause, as drafted, the Minister had power to reduce the age of entry at any time. That was not the Government's intention, and the Amendment is designed to remove any doubt on the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 20, after the word "Act," insert the words:
or later than the beginning of the insurance year next following the insurance year in which such an enactment comes into force as aforesaid."—[Mr. Lawson.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Rates of benefit.)

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out the word "a," and to insert instead thereof the words:
at a rate of remuneration not less than nine shillings per week, some.
The House will remember that, on the Committee stage, the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) raised the point that for this purpose a female person must always be the same person, and that was not the intention of the Sub-section. I need scarcely say that cases arise where a non-resident housekeeper would not be the same person throughout.

Major ELLIOT: While it may be that these words are an improvement, still the Third Reading of the Bill is to be taken this evening, when this House will have no opportunity of seeing this tremendous Measure printed in a single piece. The ordinary rights given to any local authority, of seeing before it as a connected whole the proposals in print which it is asked to pass, are to be denied to the House of Commons. The fact remains that this and other drafting Amendments are being moved in on Report, and we shall be totally prohibited from seeing the Bill in print that we are asked to pass on Third Reading. The Government must take the responsibility for that, but we must take the responsibility also to some extent. They will force it by the use of their majority. It is one of the things that makes us say, "Thank heavens, there is a House of Lords!"

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how this will work with the subsequent Amendments, because as it stands it does not appear to make sense?

Mr. LAWSON: There are further drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out from the word "children" to the word "the," in line 20.

This is a consequential Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: At least we are entitled to have the Clause read out as it is going to appear when amended. Let us have it verbally, if we are denied having it in print or even in manuscript.

Mr. LAWSON: The Sub-section, as it will appear with the consequential Amendments, will read:
(b) Where a person entitled to benefit (not being a person entitled to an increase of the weekly rate otherwise than in respect of dependent children) has previously to becoming unemployed had in his employment and thereafter continues to employ, at a rate of remuneration not less than nine shillings per week, some female person who is not residing with him to assist in the care of his dependent children, the weekly rate shall be increased by nine shillings.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 43, leave out the word "a," and insert instead thereof the words "an insured."

In page 2, line 46, leave out from the word "the" to the word "when," in page 3, line 3, and insert instead thereof the words "insured person."—[Mr. Lawson.]

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, after the word "person," to insert the words:
and when in employment (except in a case where the dependency did not arise until after the date on which the insured person became unemployed) contributed more than one-half of the actual cost of the maintenance of that other person.

Major ELLIOT: This is Sub-section (f), and we might have it read out to us, at least, as it is proposed that the House of Commons should here and now finally part with it.

Mr. LAWSON: The Sub-section, as amended, will read:
(f) For the purpose of the enactments aforesaid, an insured person shall not be deemed to be wholly or mainly maintaining any other person unless the insured person, when unemployed, contributes towards the maintenance of that other person an amount not less than the amount of the increase of benefit received in respect of that other person and when in employment (except in a case where the dependency did not arise until after the date on which the insured person became unemployed) contributed more than one-half of the actual cost of the maintenance of that other person.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that the requirement in paragraph (b) of this Sub-section as to the employment of the female person previously to the insured person becoming unemployed shall not apply in any case where the necessity for employing such a female person did
not arise until after the date on which the insured person became unemployed.

Earl WINTERTON: Before we leave these controversial matters, I should like to reinforce my hon. Friend's protest, on behalf of the Opposition, against having to consider the Third Reading of a Bill in which, in one Clause alone, something like 12 fresh lines have been added when the House has never had the opportunity of seeing the Bill in print.

Mr. LAWSON: It has been done before.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that there have been many changes on Report unless there has been an interval between the Report stage and Third Reading during which the Bill had been in print. Whether it has been done before or not, it is no less undesirable to have to consider a Bill of this magnitude on Third Reading in which there have been so many alterations made on the Report stage without it having been in print. If it is to be the custom on every Bill which the Government brings forward, the Opposition will have to take very vigorous steps to prevent Third Readings coming on on the same night as the Report stage. [Interruption]. It is all very well for the hon. Member to treat this in a derisory manner. He does not at any time treat the debate in a serious manner. We protest very vigorously against the action of the Government.

Mr. LAWSON: The points raised in these Amendments were extremely small and were only meant to give clearer expression to what was intended in the Bill. These Amendments were accepted without any idea of extending the Bill. This particular point, for instance, was raised by an hon. Member in connection with the case of the non-resident housekeeper. The case of a man who is unemployed and whose wife died during the period of unemployment was cited. The man had to employ someone to look after his children, namely, a non-resident housekeeper, and it was never the intention, either of the House or of the Bill, to penalise the man in those circumstances. All that was necessary to meet the particular point was to amend the Bill to give clearer expression to what was obviously the intention, and, when this promise was given, not a single voice was raised at the time against it in Committee.

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary has not quite grasped the contention which we were making. It is not that we are in any way distrustful of his bona fides, and it would not be possible at the moment to say whether we agree or disagree with the proposal. We were protesting against the handling of business by the Government. Mr. Speaker is regarded as the guardian of the liberties of the House. I wish it were possible for me to enter, in some more emphatic form which would draw it more immediately before your notice, Sir, the fact that the handling of business by the Government has resulted in a large and important Measure being presented to this House lacking in many of the Clauses which the Government itself considers most vital to its success, and that this Measure is never to be reprinted for the benefit of the House over which you, Sir, preside. The other House will see it and have the benefit of a copy

of the Bill. It will be the first Chamber of Parliament which will have an opportunity of considering the Bill as a whole. I wonder how the Government likes that position. A Measure to which they attach so much importance will be presented for the first time in whole to the House of Lords. All I can say is that we do not wish to delay business, but we must make the most emphatic protest, and we intend to divide against this Amendment by way of making the only possible protest left to us against the position in which the Government has placed the House in asking it to part, not merely now but in two hours' time on Third Reading, with a Measure which it has never had the opportunity of considering.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 149.

Division No. 102.]
AYES.
[7.6 p.m.


Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dallas, George
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Herriotts, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Day, Harry
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Ammon, Charles George
Devlin, Joseph
Hoffman, P. C.


Angell, Norman
Dickson, T.
Hollins, A.


Arnott, John
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hopkin, Daniel


Aske, Sir Robert
Dukes, C.
Horrabin, J. F.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Duncan, Charles
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Ede, James Chuter
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Edmunds, J. E.
Isaacs, George


Barnes, Alfred John
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bellamy, Albert
Egan, W. H.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Elmley, Viscount
Johnston, Thomas


Bennett, Captain E.N.(Cardiff, Central)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Foot, Isaac,
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Benson, G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Kelly, W. T.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Kennedy, Thomas


Birkett, W. Norman
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Kinley, J.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gibbins, Joseph
Knight, Holford


Bowen, J. W.
Gill, T. H.
Lathan, G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Glassey, A. E.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gosling, Harry
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gossling, A. G.
Lawrence, Susan


Bromfield, William
Gould, F.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Bromley, J.
Graham, Rt. Hon.Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Lawson, John James


Brothers, M.
Granville, E.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Gray, Milner
Leach, W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lees, J.


Burgess, F. G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, pontypool)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Buxton, C R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Groves, Thomas E.
Longden, F.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lowth, Thomas


Cameron, A. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William


Cape, Thomas
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Charleton, H. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
McEntee, V. L.


Chater, Daniel
Hardie, George D.
Mackinder, W.


Church, Major A. G.
Harris, Percy A.
McKinlay, A.


Clarke, J. S.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
MacLaren, Andrew


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Haycock, A. W.
McShane, John James


Compton, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Cove, William G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mansfield, W.


Daggar, George
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
March, S.


Marcus, M.
Raynes, W. R.
Stephen, Campbell


Markham, S. F.
Richards, R.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Marley, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Matters, L. W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Strauss, G. R.


Maxton, James
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Sullivan, J.


Melville, Sir James
Ritson, J.
Sutton, J. E.


Messer, Fred
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Middleton, G.
Romeril, H. G.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Millar, J. D.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Mills, J. E.
Rothschild, J. de
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Montague, Frederick
Rowson, Guy
Thurtle, Ernest


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Tillett, Ben


Morley, Ralph
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Tinker, John Joseph


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Toole, Joseph


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Tout, W. J.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sanders, W. S.
Townend, A. E.


Mort, D. L.
Sawyer, G. F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Moses, J. J. H.
Scrymgeour, E.
Turner, B.


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Scurr, John
Vaughan, D. J.


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Sexton, James
Viant, S. P.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Walker, J.


Murnin, Hugh
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wallace, H. W.


Naylor, T. E.
Sherwood, G. H.
Wellhead, Richard C.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shield, George William
Watkins, F. C.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Oldfield, J. R.
Shillaker, J. F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shinwell, E.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
West, F. R.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Simmons, C. J.
Westwood, Joseph


Palin, John Henry
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Paling, Wilfrid
Sinkinson, George
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Palmer, E. T.
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Perry, S. F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wise, E. F.


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Potts, John S.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Price, M. P.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)



Pybus, Percy John
Sorensen, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Spero, Dr. G. E.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Stamford, Thomas W.



NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cranbourne, Viscount
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Crichton-stuart, Lord C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hurd, Percy A.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Astor, viscountess
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Iveagh, Countess of


Atholl, Duchess of
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Atkinson, C.
Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Knox, Sir Alfred


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Beaumont, M. W.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Llewellin, Maior J. J.


Berry, Sir George
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Bird, Ernest Roy
Eden, Captain Anthony
Long, Major Eric


Boothby, R. J. G.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lymington, Viscount


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macquisten, F. A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadler-General E.


Boyce, H. L.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Bracken, B.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Muirhead, A. J.


Butler, R. A.
Grace, John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Carver, Major W. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Penny, Sir George


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Christie, J. A.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hartington, Marquess of
Purbrick, R.


Colville, Major D. J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsbotham, H.




Reid, David D. (County Down)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Remer, John R.
Smithers, Waldron
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Somerset, Thomas
Warrender, Sir Victor


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Wells, Sydney R.


Salmon, Major I.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of



Skelton, A. N.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Turton, Robert Hugh
Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.


Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 4.—(Examination, and determina- tion, of claims.)

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment which I call is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall)—in page 4, line 5, to leave out the word "may" and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."

Mr. KELLY: Do I understand that the manuscript Amendment which I handed in is not called?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, I do not propose to select it.

Sir A. POWNALL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
This Sub-section refers to the Subsection of the principal Act of 1920, by which any claimant for benefit is disqualified from receiving benefit if there has been a stoppage of work owing to a trade union dispute. By this Bill it is left optional with the insurance officer, who may disallow a claim for benefit if he thinks that the person claiming it is disqualified for the reason that I have mentioned. It seems very unfair to throw an onus of this sort on to the insurance officers, who will have sufficient anxieties and responsibilities conferred upon them by this Bill as it stands, without throwing on to them the invidious task of deciding whether there is a trade dispute or not. Therefore, I suggest that the word "shall" be inserted for the word "may." It cannot be argued that there is any serious danger of injustice to the claimant, because in the next Subsection there is a provision that if a claim is disallowed he may appeal.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Miss BONDFIELD: I dealt rather fully with the trade disputes Clause in the discussions on the Second Reading and
in Committee. The trade dispute claims are in a class by themselves. That is generally recognised, and we do, as a matter of practice, find that the insurance officer decides in 99 cases out of 100. But it is important that there should be this slight relaxation of the general rule which may occur in connection with some dispute in which he may choose to refer the matter directly to the court of referees; or he may disallow it himself. There is a great advantage in leaving this Clause as it is.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 18 to 29.
This Sub-section deals with the review period. The matter was fully discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill, but at that time we did not have the new Clause 4 before us. That Clause puts the onus of proof from the claimant on to the Exchange; therefore, the periodical review by the Exchange and the court of referees is no longer necessary. That was generally agreed when this matter was discussed, and I understand that the Minister is prepared to accept this Amendment.

Mr. MILLS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Miss BONDFIELD: This gives me an opportunity of correcting a statement which I made in the Committee Debate, when I unwittingly misled the House. The point I made was that the "not genuinely seeking work" cases would not come in this review. I was mistaken, for my mind was taken up with two classes of review. I now wish to present some figures which I have had looked out as a result of the discussion on the Committee stage. I find that the cases that come before the court on review under the statutory conditions other than that of not genuinely seeking work are
negligible. For example, in the period from 10th September to 14th October, I find that there were considered on review by the courts of referees 107,892 cases. Of these, 102,658 were recommended for allowance. They were the ordinary cases for the most part. Of the 5,234 cases recommended for disallowance, 5,227 were for not genuinely seeking work, and only nine were on other grounds. I have examined these other grounds, and I find that the machinery allows them to be dealt with without review. That is to say, even in those nine cases, the 13-weeks review was not necessary. In view of the fact that the new Clause 4 has completely altered the position, I am bound to admit the force of the arguments used by hon. Members as to the uselessness of this particular review machinery. It is cumbersome, expensive, and takes up the time of courts of referees turning over papers which were previously settled by the statutory conditions being complied with. Therefore, as the courts of referees will have plenty of work to do under the new Clause 4 the acceptance of this Amendment will be a real advantage to the administrative machinery.

Major ELLIOT: The right hon. Lady had no doubt indicated her acceptance to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and I do not complain that she has not indicated it to this side of the House except in her speech, but it is a common practice, if the Government intend to accept an Amendment, to star it or to indicate in some way that they are desirous of taking the point of view of the Amendment.

Miss BONDFIELD: I apologise if there has been any omission, but I understood that it was indicated.

Mr. MILLS: The Amendment is starred.

Mr. SPEAKER: A star means that it has been put on the Paper for the first time.

Major ELLIOT: It is often the case that the Government adds the name of the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary to an Amendment by way of indicating that they are going to support it. The figures which have been quoted can well stand a little investigation. They refer us back to the great Debate which took
place upon Clause 4. We are told that some 5,234 persons were disallowed, and that of these the new Clause 4 will allow through 5,227. I suppose that the original Clause 4 would not have allowed through anything like that number. It would have allowed through 2,200, judging by the proportion which the Government's memorandum gives between the persons whose claims were allowed under the old Clause which were 65,000, and the claims to be allowed under the new Clause, which were an additional 95,000. The number is rather more than double. Under the machinery which the Government first introduced, something like 2,200 persons would have been retained in benefit; under the machinery which they are going to introduce, the number is 5,227. The Attorney-General could no doubt make an equally fluent and mellifluous speech showing that both were the original intention of the Government.
We wish to get on to the Third Reading, and to discuss the principles, if there be any principles upon which this Measure is based. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is desirous of speaking, and we are more than desirous of hearing the defence which he wilt put up to a surrender practically unparalleled in the annals of the long story of the Treasury resistance to the claims of Departments and of this House. We shall first have to divide against this Amendment, for we have not had time to consider the proposals brought forward, as it has not been on the Paper before. The Minister may have given notice of it in manuscript this morning, but we must again say that these figures, these conclusions, and these Amendments ought to be in the Bill, and that a Bill embodying the considered judgment of the Government, which was not liable to be altered every moment, ought to be before the House before the Third Reading is taken. How do we know that some manuscript Amendment will not be moved later, transforming not merely the effect of the Clause, but of every Clause of the Bill to which it may apply? It is impossible for us to let this matter go without entering our protest in the Division Lobby.

Mr. MALONE: May I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman, before he wastes the time of the House by dividing, that
he used these words when the matter was discussed before: "I cannot see what there is to review."

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member does not forward business by accusing me of wasting the time of the House. I merely say that the whole of the Clause and the

hon. Member's Amendment ought to be in print when the House is asked to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 271.

Division No. 103.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fielden, E. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Atholl, Duchess of
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Penny, Sir George


Atkinson, C.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Power, Sir John Cecil


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gower, Sir Robert
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grace, John
Purbrick, R.


Beaumont, M. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Berry, Sir George
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Remer, John R.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Salmon, Major I.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Boyce, H. L.
Hartington, Marquess of
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bracken, B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hudson,Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Butler, R. A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smithers, Waldron


Carver, Major W. H.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Christie, J. A.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colville, Major D. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cranbourne, Viscount
Long, Major Eric
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lymington, Viscount
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Muirhead, A. J.
Marquess of Titchfield and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Caine, Derwent Hall


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Birkett, W. Norman
Cameron, A. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Cape, Thomas


Ammon, Charles George
Bowen, J. W.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Angell, Norman
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Charleton, H. C.


Arnott, John
Broad, Francis Alfred
Chater, Daniel


Aske, Sir Robert
Brockway, A. Fenner
Clarke, J. S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bromfield, William
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bromley, J.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brothers, M.
Compton, Joseph


Barnes, Alfred John
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Cove, William G.


Bellamy, Albert
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Daggar, George


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dallas, George


Bennett, Captain E.N.(Cardiff, Central)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Dalton, Hugh


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Burgess, F. G.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Benson, G.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Day, Harry


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leach, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dickson, T.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lees, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Dukes, C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sandham, E.


Duncan, Charles
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sawyer, G, F,


Ede, James Chuter
Longden, F.
Scrymgeour, E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Scurr, John


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, Thomas
Sexton, James


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Egan, W. H.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sherwood, G. H.


Elmley, Viscount
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shield, George William


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
McEntee, V. L.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Mackinder, W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McKinlay, A.
Shinwell, E.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McShane, John James
Simmons, C. J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Gibbins, Joseph
Mansfield, W.
Sinkinson, George


Gill, T. H.
March, S.
Sitch, Charles H.


Glassey, A. E.
Marcus, M.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gosling, Harry
Markham, S. F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gossling, A. G.
Marley, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gould, F.
Matters, L. W.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Graham, Rt. Hon.Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maxton, James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Granville, E.
Melville, Sir James
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gray, Milner
Messer, Fred
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Middleton, G.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Millar, J. D.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mills, J. E.
Sorensen, R.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Montague, Frederick
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Groves, Thomas E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morley, Ralph
Stephen, Campbell


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Strauss, G. R.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mort, D. L.
Sullivan, J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Moses, J. J. H.
Sutton, J. E.


Hardle, George D.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Harris, Percy A.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Muggeridge, H. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Murnin, Hugh
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Haycock, A. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Thurtie, Ernest


Hayday, Arthur
Noel Baker, P. J.
Tillett, Ben


Hayes, John Henry
Oldfield, J. R.
Tinker, John Joseph


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Toole, Joseph


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Tout, W. J.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Townend, A. E.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Herrlotts, J.
Palin, John Henry
Turner, B.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palmer, E. T.
Vaughan, D. J.


Hoffman, P. C.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Viant, S. P.


Hollins, A.
Perry, S. F.
Walker, J.


Hopkin, Daniel
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wallace, H. W.


Horrabin, J. F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Phillips, Dr. Marton
Watkins, F. C.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Isaacs, George
Pole, Major D. G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Welsh, James (Paisley)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Johnston, Thomas
Price, M. p.
West, F. R.


Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Pybus, Percy John
Westwood, Joseph


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Raynes, W. R.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kennedy, Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kinley, J.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Knight, Holford
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lathan, G.
Ritson, J.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Roberts, Rt.Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Wise, E. F.


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Romeril, H. G.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lawrence, Susan
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rothschild, J. de
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lawson, John James
Rowson, Guy



Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, in page 5, line 5, after the word "that," to insert the words
in any case in which a decision of a court of referees disallowing a claim is not unanimous, notice in writing of the fact
shall be given by the court to the claimant within three days of the decision and.
This Amendment is moved in fulfilment of a promise which I gave on the Committee stage when dealing with an Amendment standing in the name of the
hon. Member for Newcastle East (Sir R. Aske). It is a question of a court of referees putting into writing for the benefit of a claimant the fact that a decision to disallow his claim was not unanimous.

Mr. E. BROWN: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle East (Sir R. Aske), I beg to thank the right hon. Lady.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 5.—(Provision as to payment of benefit.)

Amendment made:

In page 6, line 15, after the word "benefit," insert the words:
either because by reason of the provisions of Section four of this Act he is disqualified for the receipt of benefit or."—[Miss Bondfield.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 9.—(Application of Unemploy- ment Insurance Acts to employment abroad.)

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in page 7, line 24, after the word "subject," to insert the words:
to the consent of the insured person and.
This Clause gives the Minister power to make regulations for the payment of contributions by workpeople who go abroad on contracts which are being carried out by firms in this country. In doing this, the Minister is going directly contrary to the recommendation of the Blanesburgh Committee, which she herself signed. On page 58 the Blanesburgh Committee say:
It would have been agreeable to us to propose some change that would be of assistance in such cases. But to extend the scope of unemployment insurance to work abroad would, we are assured, give rise to serious practical difficulties. The collection of contributions, While in the cases referred to by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation it might be possible, would, in most other cases, he exceedingly difficult; and any concession on this point must be general.
In spite of that the right hon. Lady is taking power to levy contributions on these workpeople who are employed abroad. I have put down three Amendments which are in the nature of alternatives, in the hope that one of them at least may appeal to the right hon. Lady. The Amendment I am moving has the effect of making this insurance optional.
The right hon. Lady told us on Monday last, I think, that under her regulations arrangements would be made whereby these contributions would be paid, but she has not told us how they are going to be paid, whether they will be paid week by week, or whether a lump sum is to be deducted when the man returns to this country. She also indicated that this Clause would be restricted to firms who are under contract to bring their men back. That is a very good plan, but there is nothing whatever about it in the Clause, and it will depend entirely on the right hon. Lady's regulation. Under the Clause as it stands a man after he has been employed abroad may be stranded there through sickness or lack of funds, and may not be able to get back to this country, and he will get no benefit. The right hon. Lady also told us on Monday last that this insurance would be optional, but there is nothing in the Clause about that, and that again, will depend entirely on the regulations.
Much the most important thing which she told us on Monday was that no benefit will be paid abroad. However much a man may need benefit abroad, he cannot possibly get it according to what the Minister of Labour has told us. Administratively, it may be impossible to pay the benefit abroad, but at any rate that creates a differentiation between the man under insurance in this country and the man who is working abroad, and this is a very great disadvantage to the man who works abroad. I think it ought to be made clear that there is no compulsion upon anybody under these regulations to pay the contributions while a man is abroad. The right hon. Lady says that is her intention, and, if that is so, why not put it into the Bill? The whole thing is left to the regulations. This is all the more important, because the Amendment which was proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Hackney (Captain A. Hudson) providing that the regulations should be subject to a Resolution of the House of Commons was defeated. Now those regulations are merely going to be laid on the Table of the House, and that is no safeguard at all, because they always come up for consideration very late at night in a thin House, after the other business has been concluded. The right hon. Lady has definitely stated that it is her intention
that the payment of contributions should be optional, and I cannot see why it should not be p at into the Bill.

Miss BONDFIELD: I fully recognise the difficulty in connection with this matter, because it is an experiment. I am asking for power to enter into discussions as to the practical forms which regulations may take. The power for which I am asking is very limited. It is perfectly true that this matter was considered by the Blanesburgh Committee, and they put it aside because of the practical difficulties involved. We have had applications from the employers as well as from the trade unions in the engineering trade. This Clause wants to provide that where a firm is undertaking a contract, and that firm and its workers desire to continue in insurance, I shall have power to make regulations by which that particular firm, and any other firm that makes application, shall be permitted to pay its insurance in the ordinary way.
The question arises whether we are going to allow every workman to choose whether he will be insured or not. I do not think that is possible. If a firm and its workmen, by a majority, want to remain in insurance and pay their contributions, one man ought not to be allowed to prevent the firm from doing that. I want to make it clear that the only thing we are trying to obtain is power to frame regulations, as in the case of a firm having a contract undertaking to take so many people out of the country and both they and the workmen desiring to come into an arrangement to allow them to come in. I think the Amendment which is suggested would be too limiting even for that purpose, because it would suggest that every insured person is required to give a separate consent and one person would be able to contract out. It is on that account alone that I must resist the Amendment.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that the Minister of Labour has dealt with the main point which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green G. Locker-Lampson). We cannot permit the fact that we are short of time to allow a matter of this kind to go through without protest. Let me recapitulate the arguments used on this side of the House against the Clause in its present form, and the arguments
in favour of this Amendment. In the first place, under the Clause you are making it conditional upon a man obtaining employment in certain industries that he should continue his contributions without receiving one penny of benefit in the country to which he may be going. The right hon. Lady has not answered that question, and she has refused to accept opinions expressed on this side of the House on that point. If there is an arrangement between her Department and any small class of workmen affected who are engaged in such work as bridge building and they are stranded abroad, why does she refuse to accept this limiting Amendment which will bring those men back? If those unfortunate men were stranded abroad through no fault of their own, the right hon. Lady has told me that she has no power by which it would be possible to pay out benefit to them. The Minister of Labour does not seem to have considered the case of paying these men through the British Consul. The arrangement is very unfair to a man offering himself for a job overseas, because he pays his contributions and cannot receive any benefit.

Miss BONDFIELD: May I point out to the Noble Lord that we are dealing now with people who are insured at this moment?

Earl WINTERTON: Those who are insured here are not insured when they go abroad. Suppose that there is a bridge-building contract held by a firm in this country and by some misfortune the directors fail to fulfil the conditions of that contract and another firm has to take it on--the men in the employ of the first contractor are thrown out of work, and they cannot draw any benefit. If this Clause is adopted and a firm takes on a contract overseas under the same conditions, and it turns out that the firm cannot fulfil their contract, all those workmen are thrown out of work, and not one penny of benefit will go to them. Those men will become D.B.S.'s, that is to say, distressed British subjects, and that is not right. Although we are not discussing the whole Clause now, we say that in these circumstances it is only reasonable that a man should have an option of contracting out if he wishes to do so. The Minister of Labour has already told us that this Clause only applies to a small number of people. I
asked the right hon. Lady a question about those employed in certain work like bridge building.

Miss BONDFIELD: I said that the Clause, provided they were insured persons whoever had the contract, would make no difference and the same thing would apply.

Earl WINTERTON: If that be so, why does the right hon. Lady not put those words in the Bill? I think she has been very unreasonable in this matter, and, in view of the way in which she has just accepted an important manuscript Amendment from a Member of her own party, at any rate an Amendment which has been on the Order Paper for a very short time, I think she might accept this proposal which is only a limiting Amendment and gives the right of option to the individual. If we were not working under intolerable conditions we should have discussed this important matter at much greater length, because we do not think it is fair to ask men to accept work overseas under the conditions which are proposed. The right hon. Lady talks about getting the consent of the worker. I would like

to know how she is going to get that consent, because it can only be got through a mass meeting of the men.

Mr. LAWSON: It can be got through the workmen's organisations.

Earl WINTERTON: How can those organisations know what will happen overseas, because, when he is abroad, the man is not controlled by those organisations. If a man is working overseas, do the trade unions pay his benefit? Is that man to have all the privileges from the trade unions if he is working overseas? Hon Gentlemen opposite know that that is not so.

Mr. LAWSON: The trade unions are world-wide in their operations.

Earl WINTERTON: I know that a man in the engineers union would not get his benefit while working in South America nor the trade union advantages which he enjoys in this country. I think it would be more reasonable if the right hon. Lady would accept this Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 134: Noes, 266.

Division No. 104.]
AYES.
[7.59 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Albery, Irving James
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Dixey, A. C.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Atkinson, C.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Long, Major Eric


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lymington, Viscount


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macquisten, F. A.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Ferguson, Sir John
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Berry, Sir George
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Grace, John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Boyce, H. L.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Muirhead, A. J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd'., Hexham)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Buckingham, Sir H
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Butler, R. A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Purbrick, R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm.,W.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Christie, J. A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, John R.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Colville, Major D. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cranbourne, Viscount
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Salmon, Major I.


Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.
Iveagh, Countess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Knox, Sir Alfred
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Turton, Robert Hugh
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyan
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Smithers, Waldron
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Warrender, Sir Victor



Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)
Wayland, Sir William A.
Sir George Penny and Marquess of Titchfield.


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wells, Sydney R.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marley, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Granville, E.
Matters, L. W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gray, Milner
Maxton, James


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Melville, Sir James


Alpass, J. H.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan}
Messer, Fred


Ammon, Charles George
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)
Middleton, G.


Angell, Norman
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Millar, J. D.


Arnott, John
Groves, Thomas E.
Mills, J. E.


Aske, Sir Robert
Grundy, Thomas W.
Montague, Frederick


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Ayles, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morley, Ralph


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barnes, Alfred John
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mort, D. L.


Bellamy, Albert
Hardle, George D.
Moses, J. J. H.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Harris, Percy A.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Muggeridge, H. T.


Benson, G.
Haycock, A. W.
Murnin, Hugh


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hayes, John Henry
Noel Baker, P. J.


Birkett, W. Norman
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oldfield, J. R.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Bowen, J. W.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Oliver, p. M. (Man., Blackley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Harriotts, J.
Palin, John Henry


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palmer, E. T.


Bromfield, William
Hoffman, P. C.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bromley, J.
Hollins, A.
Perry, S. F.


Brothers, M.
Hopkin, Daniel
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Horrabin, J. F.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pole, Major D. G.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Ponsonby, Arthur


Burgess, F. G.
Isaacs, George
Potts, John S.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Price, M. P.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Johnston, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Richards, R.


Cape, Thomas
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Chater, Daniel
Kennedy, Thomas
Ritson, J.


Clarke, J. S.
Kinley, J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Knight, Holford
Romeril, H. G.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lathan, G.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Compton, Joseph
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rothschild, J. de


Cove, William G.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Rowson, Guy


Daggar, George
Lawrence, Susan
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Dallas, George
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sanders, W. S.


Day, Harry
Leach, W.
Sandham, E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sawyer, G. F.


Dickson, T.
Lees, J.
Scrymgeour, E.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scurr, John


Dukes, C.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sexton, James


Duncan, Charles
Longden, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ede, James Chuter
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lowth, Thomas
Shield, George William


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shillaker, J. F.


Elmley, Viscount
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shinwell, E.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
McElwee, A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McEntee, V. L.
Simmons, C. J.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N)
Mackinder, W.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McKinlay, A.
Sinkinson, George


Gibbins, Joseph
McShane, John James
Sitch, Charles H.


Gill, T. H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Glassey, A. E.
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gosling, Harry
March, S.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gossling, A. G.
Marcus, M.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Gould, F.
Markham, S. F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)




Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wellock, Wilfred


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Thurtle, Ernest
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Tillett, Ben
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Tinker, John Joseph
West, F. R.


Sorensen, R.
Toole, Joseph
Westwood, Joseph


Spero, Dr. G. E.
Tout, W. J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Townend, A. E.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Stephen, Campbell
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Turner, B.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Vaughan, D. J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Strauss, G. R.
Viant, S. P.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Sullivan, J.
Walker, J.
Wise, E. F.


Sutton, J. E.
Wallace, H. W.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Watkins, F. C.



Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 15.—(Transitory provisions.)

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, in page 11, line 13, to leave out the words "section four," and to insert instead thereof the words "sections four, five, and six."
This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 16.—(Interpretation, repeal, application, short title and com- mencement.)

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, in page 11, line 28, to insert the words:
'Employment Exchange' has the same meaning as the expression 'Labour Exchange' in the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, and includes branch offices and juvenile employment bureaux.
I think the House is fully seized of the fact that we now use, instead of the term "labour exchange," a much more preferable term which was instituted, I believe, by the Government of the party opposite. This Amendment is merely to put the matter technically right in the present Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Re- pealed.)

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in page 16, line 19, column 3, at the end, to insert the words:
and Sub-section (5) of Section thirty-five.
This is a very small Amendment. Subsection (5) of Section 35 of the Act of 1920 merely states that one of the provisions of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, does not apply to any regulations made under that Act, and I think that, in view of the attacks which have been made on the subject of legislation by regulation, we should re-insert into any Measure that we can the old provision that, in the case of any Statutory Rule,
notice should be given when it is proposed to make any change. As a matter of fact, that is a recommendation which the Lord Chief Justice himself has made in his authoritative work on this subject, and I commend it to the right hon. Lady and ask her if she will be good enough to accept the Amendment.

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that cannot accept the Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Are we to have no reason given?

Earl WINTERTON: I really think we might have some reason for the refusal to accept this Amendment. If the right hon. Lady cannot give a reason, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can. It is really treating my hon. and gallant Friend with rather scant courtesy merely to say that the Amendment cannot be accepted, without giving any reason. Perhaps, when they have searched for the reason, one of the hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite will give an answer to my hon. and gallant Friend. [Interruption.] It is not a question of courtesy. The lack of courtesy is on the part of the Government. My hon. and gallant Friend made a perfectly reasonable request, but all that the right hon. Lady said was that she regretted that she could not accept the Amendment—[Interruption.] I would remind hon. Gentlemen that it is usual for even the most incompetent Minister to give some reason for not accepting an Amendment.

Commander WILLIAMS: If we are not going to have a reply on this Amendment, I can only say that it is most unusual. I do not think I have ever before heard a Minister refuse to give a reply on an Amendment that has been called on the Report stage. We all have very great sympathy with the right hon. Lady in her difficulties with this Bill, but,
after all, if people accept office, it is expected that they should understand what it involves. When the Minister simply says, blankly, "No. I cannot do this," do not wish to be unjust, but it looks as if she did not know anything about the matter. I should not like that to go out to the country; I think it would be a terrible thing; it looks as if the right hon. Lady had as little knowledge as the Liberal party at the moment. It looks as if she were like the Leader, or the owner, I should say, of the Liberal party—as though she were of a, proud disposition and would not let us know what it is about. There is nothing really to hide. I am only endeavouring to help the right hon. Lady in her very difficult position. I see the Parliamentary Secretary getting some information, and, directly he comes back and says that that information is available, I will give way. This is not a minor point. It is a point which the Lord Chief Justice emphasised very clearly, and I hope that at any rate the right hon. Lady will let us have some reply.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: As soon as the Parliamentary Secretary comes back, I would really ask whether we cannot have a reply about this. The point is quite simple. The Sub-section says:
Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act, 1893 (which requires notices to be given of a proposal to make Statutory Rules) shall not apply to any Regulations made under this Act.
It is scant courtesy to the Opposition. We have not obstructed any business. The Amendment has this very substantial reason for it, that by this Bill the Department are taking important powers for Regulations which ought not to be allowed to pass sub silentio. There is a real, valid reason now for saying that there ought to be notice of proposals to make Statutory Rules after all that has happened.

Miss BONDFIELD: There was no intention of discourtesy to the House. I knew that hon. Members were very anxious to get on with their Amendment. It is clear, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, that a Department like mine has to make Regulations and cannot wait 40 days to lay them on the Table of the House before anything can be done. It would be a perfectly unreasonable and hampering request to the administration
to accept the Amendment. It was not with any lack of courtesy, but I thought it would have been perfectly obvious, certainly to the Front Bench, that such an Amendment could not be accepted.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 17, line 10, leave out the words
paragraph beginning 'In the case of,'
and to insert instead thereof the words:
words from In the case of any person formerly,' to the end of Sub-section (2)."—[Miss Bondfield.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Lawson.]

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House declines to assent to a Measure which places increased and multi plied burdens on the Exchequer and is calculated, according to the official statement of the Government Actuary, to bring about a deficit in the Unemployment Insurance Fund during the year of upwards of £2,000,000.
I have listened in the course of all these Debates to the speeches of Ministers, and their tone always gave me the sensation of listening to someone repeating the old verse:
The good that I would, that do I not, And the evil that I would not, that I do.
If I can picture to myself the Minister, with her knowledge of the subject and the. sources of information that she possesses, I cannot imagine anyone who would be more likely to think of that verse as applying to her own case. Look at the Bill for a moment in its effect on unemployment. We have a Government that came into power on the pretence that it can solve the problem of unemployment. The Prime Minister says they alone have a programme and they alone are the people who possess the ideas that will enable the problem to be solved. Again the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself told us that in twelve months time, when returned to power, he was confident that they would make a great impression on the magnitude of the problem. They have been in for nearly seven, and the only impression they have created is that they are perfectly incapable of dealing with the problem. What has happened up to now is that, instead of any reduction or improvement in unem-
ployment, up the figures have been going week by week one after another until they are now more than 200,000 more than when they came into power. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the figures under you a year ago?"]—a rise more rapid, in the same period of the autumn, than when we were in power a year ago. While the figures for unemployment have been rising wages have been falling, until there is a decrease of over £60,000 a week, a reduction of £3,500,000 a year. That is the moment the Government have chosen to force through the House a Bill which imposes an immense increase in taxation and a burden on the taxpayer. The Clause that was hastily redrafted and re-inserted on Report adds £2,000,000 of burden to the Unemployment Fund, so that it would no longer balance at the assumed figure of 1,200,000, and it adds a burden on the Exchequer equivalent to an increase of £50,000,000 on the National Debt—that one last hastily drawn Clause which the House has never been given an opportunity of criticising or analysing satisfactorily.
That course of action, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows quite well, of imposing one burden after another on finance has a disastrous effect on industry and employment. That is recognised by the Leaders of the Socialist party themselves. Not only does it hit industry and employment generally but it hurts industry in its most vital and most vulnerable part, in the matter of foreign trade. We all by now recognise—the Lord Privy Seal with the rest these days —that the greater part of our unemployment is due to the falling off of foreign trade. The one thing we wish to do above all others to improve the state of employment is to regain some of our lost foreign trade, and it is precisely these burdens placed on the taxpayer that make it the more difficult to regain it and the easier for the loss to become still greater. The Government have done this with complete deliberation. I was not in the House on the Second Reading but I took a great interest in what went on, and I read the very striking warning given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. It is seldom that I have the privilege of seeing
eye to eye with him, but in this case most of us could agree with every word he says:
We are undoubtedly piling up a tremendous bill which this country ultimately cannot bear. I want to put that quite seriously. I can understand the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. They know that the country cannot stand it, and their purpose is to break down the system. From their point of view, as a tactical move, it is perfectly right to propose these additions year by year, because, if they succeed, the system will inevitably break down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1916; col. 771, Vol. 232.]
At the end of his speech he said he proposed to give the Measure a Second Reading because it would be subjected to a close scrutiny in Committee, and he believed that Amendments would be moved to remove some of the objections to it. He was an optimist. The Amendments that have been made in Committee have meant a further imposition of over £4,000,000 of expenditure a year, the least justifiable and the least useful of all the expenditure that the Bill imposes, and it has all been the result of the amazing procedure of the last 10 days.
I would ask the House What is the justification for all this expenditure now that we come to review the Bill and look back upon it? The only claim that the Government can produce in justifying it is that it is the one way they know of meeting the objection to the condition about genuinely seeking work. That is absolute nonsense. We were, on all sides of the House, quite ready to join in meeting objections to genuinely seeking work. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not do it?"] There is objection on the part of hon. Members opposite that we did not make speeches on the subject on Clause 4. [Interruption.] What sweet simplicity on that side of the House! As if they did not know that, if we were to support the Government in resisting a bad Amendment or bad proposal by making speeches, it would be one way of making their own extremists determined to force it upon them. It is perfectly obvious from the point of view of getting the Bill as little unreasonable as it might be that is was far better not to make speeches upon it in support of the Government.
It is not a Bill to meet objections about genuinely seeking work. It is a Bill, as the hon. Member for Westmorland
(Mr. O. Stanley) said in his very striking speech, which for the first time takes away any defence that any of us had in the past for saying that it was not a system of doles. It is a Bill which transforms the whole insurance scheme into a system of doles. It is a Bill for the endowment of people whom the Attorney-General calls "work-shys." It is a Bill for the enrichment of people who are not deserving at the expense of the good workmen. [Interruption.] I say that quite deliberately. It is proved, and proved beyond all question by the Official White Paper issued by the Government themselves. Let me compare for a moment speeches by Ministers opposite with the official papers. Barely a month ago the Lord Privy Seal stated his opinion in public:
If you ask me what it is that disturbs me most, I have no hesitation in saying that it is anything which makes men and women rely upon other efforts than their own.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Member cheer that. This Bill does the opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, it does not!"] Let hon. Members read their own Official White Paper:
The obligation placed on the claimant … is confined to taking steps to search for work in accordance with directions given … by the Employment Exchange.
They go on to point out that if he does not do so, the proof that he does not lies upon the Exchange, and the Exchange in all probability will not be able to produce the proof. It is a pure farce. Take the next statement of the Lord Privy Seal:
What disturbs me also is anything that tends to make people look to the State for the assistance which they themselves ought to provide.
Let any hon. Members read the other sections of their own White Paper. The new provision introduced by the Attorney-General will have the effect of bringing other persons into benefit.
Married women who have done little or no work since marriage; seasonal workers during the off-season
these two classes will serve as
illustrations of the considerable group of new claimants consisting of persons who, so to speak, are not really in the market as competitors for employment, but who hold themselves out as such if they are thereby enabled to qualify for benefit.
The White Paper proves up to the
hilt every single statement that I have made, that it is not the removal of difficulties in the way of a person who ought to get benefit, but that it is making it easier for people who ought not to get benefit. That is the effect of the redrafted Clause which we have before the House. That is the answer of this House to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in giving the Bill a Second Reading. Four to four and a half million pounds more of expenditure upon doles to the unemployed at a time when we have £3,500,000 a year less earnings in wages of the employed. I say that to vote for this Bill on the Third Reading is the final destruction of any true insurance scheme and the creation of a system of gigantic relief to take its place—relief very largely to the undeserving at the expense of the good and honest workman. [Interruption.]
There is one more item which is even more significant than the changing of the Bill. It is the way in which the change in the Bill was made. When the Attorney-General brought in this new Clause, there was one striking phenomenon which occurred, and that is, what happened to the party below the Gangway, at the present moment represented by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). It was really very remarkable. Not a single leader of the Liberal party voted for the new Clause —not one. If any one examines the Division list, he will find that there is no presence there of the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, or of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman), the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), or the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) or any other of the leaders of the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Leith and his hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin and the other Members of the rank and file deserted them. They followed the Attorney-General. I suppose it was that the old influence of the Attorney-General was too strong. They
that had loved him so, followed him, honoured him,
Lived in his mild and magnificent eye,
I forget the name of the poem—[An HON. MEMBER: "The Lost Leader"]—but it begins with the lines:
Just for a handful of silver be left us,
Just for a rihand to stick in his coat.
Our objection to the action of the Government is much more vital. We always said, that, when it came to a crisis, the Government would always surrender to their own extremists. We have been met sometimes by critics who said, "Oh, surely you can trust the backbone of a Government when it possesses the Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor of the Exchequer among its members." We have pure proof of the absolute justice of what we thought. There never was a more spineless capitulation to the extremists. I ask the House to condemn this Bill for its intrinsic demerits. It is a bad Bill, because it reduces the insurance scheme to a dole system, because it brings children into the dole system who ought never to be there, because it endows the work-shy and enriches the undeserving at the expense of the honest and good workman, because it increases taxation enormously, and because it is one of a series of Measures which is increasing unemployment as well. Therefore, we condemn it, but we regard it also as a proof of a danger which is graver and more far-reaching. It is proof that, when a crisis comes, this Government cares nothing for the employer, or employe, or the taxpayer, or for industry, or for employment. It proves that, when the hour of trial comes, there is no national interest so great that the Government will not betray it at the dictation of its extremists.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I do not think that the speech to which we have just listened has been worth the trouble which has evidently been expended upon its preparation, but I certainly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and those who are associated with him in this Amendment upon their colossal audacity. This Amendment asks the House to reject this Bill on the ground that it imposes unanticipated financial burdens upon the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman says that, when the Minister of Labour was faced by the question of doing the right thing or doing the
evil thing, she chose to do the evil thing. May I give the right hon. Gentleman another quotation, but not from the same source:
The evil that men do lives after them.
This Bill is the inevitable consequence of the policy which was pursued by the right hon. Gentleman, in association with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the last five years, and which brought the fund into a state of bankruptcy. The purpose of this Bill is to try to restore something of solvency to the Insurance Fund. What was the position with which we were faced when we took office In the last 12 months, for which matters were under the control of the right hon. Gentleman, £12,000,000 was added to the debt of the Insurance Fund. When we left office five years ago, the debt on the fund was just over £5,000,000. When we took office, it was not far short of £37,000,000, or within £3,000,000 of complete exhaustion of the borrowing powers. The reckoning was only sufficient to cover an average unemployment of 1,000,000, whereas the figure had been from 200,000 to 400,000 above that figure during a considerable part of the tenure of office of the late Government.
The late Government, by the Act of 1927, reduced the contributions from 25¾d. to 21d. If that had not been done, the debt on the fund to-day, instead of being nearly £40,000,000, would have been only £20,000,000. We were faced by this problem, and there were three courses open, any one of which the Government might have adopted. We might have raised the contributions. If the contributions had been kept at the figure at which they were in 1927 we should not have had to deal with the financial problem which is embodied in this Bill. That was one thing that we might have done. Another was that we might have increased the borrowing powers. After consideration, the Government rejected both these alternatives. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the burdens upon industry due to the proposals which are made in this Bill. We rejected the idea of raising the contributions, because we believed that if that were done it would have been a more direct burden upon industry than if the necessary funds to achieve solvency were drawn from general taxation. I rejected borrowing for the reason that the floating debt, thanks to the financial
policy of the late Government, has been immensely inflated. My great object is to reduce it and not to increase it.
Having rejected these two possibilities or courses, we were left with one other course, and that was for the Exchequer to assume the responsibility of keeping the fund solvent. That is the financial scheme which is embodied in this Bill. How are we going to do that? The financial proposals of the Bill are very complicated and very difficult to explain. I am going to make an attempt to explain them, but I am not very confident of my success in doing so. Our proposals will add to the Exchequer contributions to the fund a sum of £14,000,000. How is that made up? By the first Unemployment Bill of this year the Exchequer assumed the responsibility for equal thirds in the contributions. That involves an Exchequer contribution of £3,500,000. The other items making up the £14,000,000 are these—and an examination of these items will show how practically each one, with very insignificant exceptions, has been made necessary and inevitable in order to restore solvency to the fund and enable benefits to continue to be paid. Increased benefits to young persons is a very small additional annual charge on the fund of £370,000. Increased rates for dependants will cost—I am speaking now not of the cost to the Exchequer but of the increase to the fund—£1,750,000 a year. Then the altered conditions on which the right hon. Gentleman poured so much of his vitrol are responsible for the main financial burden on the fund. This will amount to about £7,250,000. Now as to the Exchequer share in these increased burdens on the fund. There is, first of all, the Exchequer recoupment for transitional benefit, which, without the two conditions I have mentioned, would have amounted to £7,100,000. Then the increased cost of this recoupment, owing to the improved benefits, including what is called the genuinely seeking work provision, amounts to £3,400,000. The net result of all this is that in effect the Exchequer is paying into the fund £14,000,000, while increased benefits will amount to £9,400,000, so that the Exchequer is paying in addition into the fund an excess sum of £4,600,000. I said that I had doubts whether I should be able to make these complicated figures
clear, I have done so to the best of my ability, and it explains the increased Exchequer contribution of £14,000,000. There is an item of £500,000 which is due to the normal growth of expenditure under the Bill.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Administration expenses.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Provision was made in last year's Estimates for an Exchequer contribution of £12,000,000. Next year the additions made in this Bill will bring the total Exchequer contributions up to £26,500,000, and, as I have pointed out, only a small part of that is really due to increased benefits; a larger bulk of it, of course, is due to that much debated Clause dealing with genuinely seeking work. It is not within my province, except so far as finance is important, to be an expert on the administration of the Unemployment Fund. As a matter of fact, I know very little about it. I have never had any practical experience of its administration, but, on the matter of genuinely seeking work, may I be permitted to say this: There are three classes of workmen, and the vast majority of each, perhaps I may say 99 per cent. of the workers, probably more than that, are honest, straightforward men, who prefer work to benefit, who feel a personal humiliation at being out of work, who when they are out of work will strain every nerve to get work. Then, there is the class which we may call the inefficient, who like work, who want to work, but who experience the greatest difficulty in getting work because of their lower vitality and their industrial inefficiency. Then there is that negligible class of men who perhaps would prefer to live, if I may use the expression of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in State-endowed idleness rather than earn their living by work.
The point it seems to me is this, and I am not speaking as one who is at all an authority on these matters, that it is much better that one man in a thousand should get this benefit, even though he does not deserve it, than that 999 men out of the 1,000 who deserve it should not get the benefit. That seems to me to be the justification for the Clause of the Bill which is going to be such an expensive item to meet. I am prepared to defend it, and to justify it. I do not want to spend money unnecessarily, not
a single penny. Over and over again throughout his speech, the right hon. Gentleman sneered at the Government and at their surrender to what he calls the extremists. I know of no such surrender. I know of Amendments which have appeared on the Paper which would have been very expensive indeed; but they have not been accepted by the Government. There was one Amendment which appeared on the Paper to restore a condition of benefit which was abolished by the right hon. Gentleman; an Amendment upon which, on its merits, a great deal might be said. Indeed, the difficulty of a Chancellor of the Exchequer is always this, that it is always very easy for an hon. Member to make out a good case for a particular Amendment and it is often very difficult to resist it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to decide not merely on a particular Amendment; he has to look at the financial problem as a whole and consider how much he can possibly afford.
There were three Amendments on the Paper, one to which I have just referred to reduce the waiting period to three days. That would have cost, I think, £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. The Government in 1924 could well afford it. The financial position in those days was very different from what it is to-day. I had a surplus of £30,000,000 on my Budget. My successor next year inherited, if I may be permitted to quote his own words, as the result of my careful husbanding of the national resources a surplus of nearly £40,000,000—the only surplus he ever had. We were able to do things in those days which we cannot possibly afford to do now. That Amendment would have cost £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. It was resisted. Is that an evidence of a surrender of the Government to the extremists 7 There was a further Amendment dealing with what I believe is technically called the continuity condition. I do not understand it, but it has something to do with raising the continuity interval from 10 weeks to 12 months. That would have cost another £5,000,000. We would not accept that. Is that further evidence of the spineless nature of those who are responsible? There was a further Amendment proposing to raise substantially the scales of benefit. That would have cost £12,000,000. Twelve and nine make 21. If those three Amendments had been
accepted, there would have been an addition of £21,000,000 to the £14,000,000 of increased Exchequer contributions under this Bill.
There is, as I have said, a great deal to be said on each of those Amendments. But I have had to take the financial position as a whole into consideration. We are having to provide next year £14,000,000 of revenue to finance the schemes of this Bill, due entirely to the gross mismanagement of the national finances by our predecessors. We are seeing in the Tory newspapers some criticism of the extravagance of this Government. The Leader of the Opposition made the same point in the speech which he delivered in Edinburgh a few days ago. He talked about perilous extravagance and about our piling up expenditure. Yes, we are piling up expenditure in order to try to bring the finances of this country into an honest and sound condition, and —I very much regret to have to say it—we are not at the end of our task yet by a long, long way.
Let me give the Leader of the Opposition some figures. I regret that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, though I shall have other opportunities of reminding him of these facts. During the last three years—I hope that my hon. Friends on this side, at any rate, will make a note of the incontrovertible facts that I am about to submit to the House—the raids and forestallments of revenue have amounted to over £50,000,000; the sinking fund provision has fallen short by some £30,000,000. Legislation passed by the late Government has not been financed out of revenue. The year after next I shall have to find—[Interruption.] Hon. Members might have noticed that I hesitated before I made that statement; therefore I deliberately made it as I did. The year after next I shall have to find additional revenue amounting to £15,000,000 to finance the rating legislation. In the last three years the late Government undertook expenditure amounting to £95,000,000 for which they made not one penny of new provision. That is the explanation of the increased Exchequer contribution in this Bill. We are compelled unless benefits should no longer be paid, to make this provision. Officially, I need hardly say, I do not like it. If I had £14,000,000 to spend, preferably I would spend it upon something which would be more directly re-
munerative. But unfortunately we cannot spend the same money upon two purposes at the same time.
9.0 p.m.
Reference has been made to what the Government actuary has said. He is stated to have said that there will be an increase of upwards of £2,000,000 in the Exchequer contribution next year and that in addition £2,000,000 will be added to the debt. The Government actuary does not say so. What he says is that upon the basis of a certain number of unemployed, 1,200,000 on the average, there will be an additional £2,000,000 of debt; but the Government actuary does not commit himself to the statement that there will be an average of 1,200,000 unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman opposite quoted something which I am recorded to have said, that in 12 months time we would make an impression upon unemployment. I stand by that statement, and I add this further—that we are not going to be judged by our unemployment policy at the end of 12 months. I certainly am not going to be judged on my financial policy on my first Budget. It will take, at the shortest two to three years to restore the finances of the country to the position in which they were in 1924. But I shall be gravely disappointed if the average of unemployment during the next 12 months is not below 1,200,000. Therefore that increase of debt is not likely to mature.
I state this further: If unfortunately something happens and our hopes are disappointed, I am afraid that we shall be compelled in a Bill next year to make further provisions for keeping the Fund solvent. I do not anticipate, however, that that very regrettable necessity will arise. I ask the House to give a Third Reading to this Bill. As I have said, the Bill is necessary. It gives moderately increased benefit; it will restore the Fund to solvency; and it will also redress a grievance which has been most keenly felt by hundreds and thousands, and indeed millions of men, among the most honest and hard working, of our industrial population.

Mr. FOOT: It is extremely difficult to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer and one in my position can only recall those lines:
As in a theatre, the eyes of men,
After a well grac'd actor leaves the stage,
Are idly bent on him that enters next,
Thinking his prattle to be tedious.
In the same way, in following the Chancellor of the Exchequer I have to ask Members of the House to allow me to explain a vote which I gave the other evening when I voted against the new Clause which I think is the essential part of this Bill. Some hon. Members will recall the discussion which took place on the 5th December. I said that I had heard practically every word of that Debate and that I did not know when I had been called upon to give a vote which cost me more anxiety and apprehension. I am bound to say that what I have heard since on that point in this House, including the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night, has not lifted that apprehension from my mind. I voted the other evening against the new Clause—the Clause which took the place of the original Clause 4 of the Bill —and I want to bring before the House, some of the considerations which weighed with me, as one who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill. If I have not heard every word of these discussions I have read every word of them, and have read as diligently as I could the evidence given before the Morris committee. I have read what the majority of that committee had to say and I am still not satisfied that I ought to give my vote in favour of the Clause which was passed the other night.
It is the central part of the Bill. I think there can be no doubt about that fact because, when the Minister introduced the Measure, she did not deal with this Clause in its order. She took Clause 4 first of all and dealt with the other Clauses as subsidiary or ancillary to it. The Gibraltar of the situation is Clause 4. A great deal of what has been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had o bearing upon Clause 4, but I want the right hon. Gentleman to see the matter as it appears to me. I agree with him absolutely as to the fourth statutory condition. I do not think that anyone can sincerely and vigilantly read the evidence given before the Morris committee without coming to the conclusion that that condition ought to be swept away. I do not think that the charge of administrative persecution was proved. I think it was not proved as far as I
can see from the evidence, but there was, undoubtedly, a cumulative grievance and bitterness and discontent, with a hardship inflicted on the most helpless part of the population. My sympathy, first of all, is with the unemployed people. I refuse to think of the unemployed in terms of figures and statistics and curves and descriptions in bulk. I always remember a famous passage by Carlyle in which, referring to the time when the aristocracy of France referred to the "masses of France," he says:
Masses indeed! But follow them, if you will, over the broad land of France into their hovels and into their hutches, and you will find, strangely enough, that the masses consist of units, and every man stands there with his own heart and sorrows and covered with his own skin, and, if you prick him, he will bleed.
I refuse to approach this question of unemployment except from the recognition, as I said the other evening, that those who are in most need have the first claim upon the community. The fourth statutory condition was, I think, a hardship inflicted upon these men. It had to be swept away and the majority of the committee so reported. Then changes were suggested in this House and were embodied, after deliberation, in the Bill and I think it is simply playing with words to say that the Bill as introduced by the Government, after, as I suppose, responsible deliberation, did not bring about a very substantial change. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Of course it brought about a change. It changed the condition—changed it from a condition into a disqualification—and It lifted the onus off the shoulders of the man and placed it for the most part on the insurance officer and the machine. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate, that is my submission and it. was the opinion of the majority of those on the committee and it was the opinion of the Government. It was the opinion of the responsible officers of the Government who explained it in this House. I hope I shall say nothing provocative. There is no attraction to me in making this speech which I must make to-night. I shall be happy to hear all that is said, and I shall refer directly to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) who has been kind enough to speak to me on this matter.
I say that it is playing with words to suggest that there was not a substantial change made by the Bill as it was put before the House. I heard the proposals put before the House by the Minister. I heard them explained by the Attorney-General and in those proposals there was a statutory declaration of the principle that the unemployed man must himself seek for work. That undoubtedly was the centre of the proposals in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Clause 4 of the Bill as it was introduced. The Minister herself said it was "essential." She said that the House ought to be warned against a grave mistake, and the Attorney-General said afterwards:
There is a danger of being led away by our sympathy to do something which is really unwarranted.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1929; col. 2693, Vol. 232.]
That was a warning not by anyone on these benches but by a responsible officer of the Crown in relation to a Bill upon which there had been months of deliberation. I was convinced by the Attorney-General. I listened to every word he said. It has been suggested that every speech made from these benches was against that Clause but such is not the case. I stood here in my place and said that I thought there should be in the Measure, as it left the House, an expression of the statutory obligation upon the unemployed man himself to look for work. Then the Government gave way and promised to bring in another Clause. That was on 5th December, and by 12th December great things had happened. There was a Financial Memorandum which did not reach me until just before midnight on the Wednesday night. I do not know very much about the Financial Memorandum but I think the criticisms of it have been undeserved. I am inclined to think that if ft had supported hon. Members opposite in their contention they would have quoted it with great eagerness. Whoever was responsible for the Memorandum was a courageous man. He discharged his duty and expressed his opinion frankly.
We cannot set the Financial Memorandum on one side, otherwise it is no use having financial memoranda at all. I assume that the officer who hurriedly had to prepare it, discharged his duty in such a way that he can justify his views in the light of the experience of
the next year or two. There is the difference between a civil servant and a Minister. The Minister is here one year and not here the next, but the officer is here next year. He has to stand the criticism and the test of experience. In this case he made a criticism in the Memorandum as to the immense expenditure involved and then came the Debates upon 12th December. I think they were amazing Debates. I came to hear what the Minister had to say on the point which she had described the week before as "Essential." She dismissed it, I thought, in a few perfunctory phraees. What was essential on the 5th of the month had become unimportant on the 12th. What was cardinal on the 5th had become almost irrelevant and unimportant on the 12th; and the attitude of the Attorney-General on the 12th was such that I have no words left in which to express my surprise. On the 5th he had put that question that he is never likely to be allowed to forget:
Are we to legislate on the lines that these people should think that they need do nothing themselves; that they should wait at home, sit down, smoke their pipes, and wait until an offer comes to them? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1929; col. 2687; Vol. 232.]
I can imagine the derision that would have arisen in this House if that bad been said from the Front Opposition Bench, but it came from the Attorney-General. That was the question that was put on the ah. On the 12th we had the answer, and the answer was in the affirmative. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] My submission is that as the Bill at present stands there is no obligation whatever upon a man to lift a finger. [Interruption.] That was the interpretation given by the Attorney-General. If that is wrong, then all my argument is wrong, but the assumption is that a man who is away from his Employment Exchange need not himself, until he has received written instructions, lift a finger to find work. [Interruption.] I would not have minded so much if the Attorney-General had said that he had to bow to the will of the House, but what I could not stand was that he should have made this change, and then spoken proudly of it and, in full view of the House, adjusted the plume upon his helmet and pinned the medale upon his own breast. That is what he did in the course of the
Debate, and he congratulated himself upon his courage, when he had been obliged to give way and to change the position which he himself had taken on the 5th of the month.
My suggestion is that there is one statement made by the Attorney-General on the 5th, and there is another on the 12th, and I had to make my choice between the two. I was convinced by what he said on the 5th; I was not convinced by what he said on the 12th. I went with him in his advance; I was not prepared to go with him in his retreat. [An HON. MEMBERS: "He advanced further!"] I do not know about that. I hope that, for his own reputation, the Attorney-General will not be obliged to make speeches like that with the short interval between them or seven days. Otherwise, there may come upon him the words once written in describing a statesman in this House a very long time ago:
His ready tongue, with sophistries at will,
Can say, unsay, and be consistent still.
The submission that I make is what I tried to say on the 5th. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend who represents Middlesbrough lives in a distressed area, and I. can quite understand his desperate concern on these matters, but we who live away from those distressed areas can also be concerned, although we are not brought into such close contact with the problem. There is a difference between one place and the other. There is a great difference where the workpeople scarcely ever see the Employment Exchange at all. I live in a part of the country where my people do not usually go to the Employment Exchange. Because of the distance, they do not go to register, and they do not go to receive their money, under what, I think, are the very reasonable arrangements made by which a man is not required to go eight or nine miles just to sign a paper, and his money is sent to him instead. There are some exceptional parts of the country where the Exchange is 100 miles away from the men concerned; and there should be some recognition of the difference between the distressed areas and the ordinary areas of the country. I was astonished to hear what was said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), who speaks also for a distressed area, and who made
a speech from an experience of winch I know nothing. He was criticising the Attorney-General, and he said:
The Attorney-General let the thing out in all its naked horror at the beginning of his speech. He let the Committee understand that what he desired to do was to devise a Sub-section which would leave the applicant for benefit to understand that he was expected to seek out the employer. I never expected to listen in the House of Commons to a spokesman of a Labour Government making such a statement as that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1929, col. 2696, Vol. 232.]
That may be quite right as far as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is concerned, but I thought it was common ground with most people that the unemployed man owes a duty to those of his fellows who are contributing to the fund. [Interruption.] I hope there is nothing provocative in that. I am a man of peace, and I do not want to stir up wrath. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said he never expected to listen in the House of Commons to a spokesman of a Labour Government make such a statement as that an applicant should be expected to seek out the employer. I should have thought it was a very proper obligation upon him. The trouble is not in explaining this to the employers, but in explaining it to the workpeople. While these Debates have been going on, I have received a letter from my part of the country from a foreman in a certain works in the northern part of Cornwall, not a constituent, but a man knowing something of what is going on here. He writes:
We have about 30 men employed on the works. The progress of the works is absolutely dependent on weather and tides. The men are required every minute it is possible to work, but at other times they have to stand off, without pay. It is impossible to pay them standing-off pay, or retention money, and keep the cost of the work within the estimates "—
This is a public concern—
and the limited amount of money available for the works. Unfortunately, the past few weeks these men have not received as much money as they would have done had they been wholly unemployed, and on the dole.' This naturally causes dissatisfaction, and to-day some of the men asked the foreman to discharge them, so that they could go on the 'dole.'

HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

Mr. FOOT: I am not blaming the men, but there is the position, which is made difficult by reason of the temptation—!

Mr. LAWTHER: "Lead us not into temptation." [Interruption.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): Hon. Members will have an opportunity of replying.

Mr. FOOT: I am using the term used by the Minister of Labour in speaking of temptation, and I will tell the House of a paragraph to which she put her name in the Blanesburgh Report, where it speaks of the benefits that should be given:
It should provide benefits definitely less in amount than the general labourer's rate of wage, so that there may be no temptation to prefer benefit to work.
[Laughter.]—The laughter of hon. Members opposite should be aimed in another direction than over here. That the temptation exists, who can deny? I agree with all that is said from the benches opposite to the effect that the great majority, the overwhelming majority, of the workmen and women are as deserving as any class in the community and probably more deserving than many classes, but while I will admit that, I say that it is pure political pedantry to deny that there will be, for a certain number, a temptation such as is here described. The trouble is not between the ordinary classes in this country, between the employer and the workmen, but between one workman and the other. That is where the disaffection exists. I went down the other evening to a part of my constituency where the men go out day after day to work in perilous conditions and when they come back after a perilous journey over the rocks with great danger to themselves, there is not a man in that community who in the last two years has on the average earned as much as is provided here. [HON. MEMBERS "Shame!"] It is not a question of trouble with employers. There are no employers there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Middlemen!"] Yes, middlemen, and I hope my hon. Friends who talk about middlemen will insist on having something done. That is the fact to-day and the difficulty is not between employers and workmen but between one man and the other. Just as in the old story of the men who went into
the vineyard, the trouble at the end of the day was not between the owner of the vineyard and the workers, but between those who thought they had done a full day's work and the others who had not. I do not say they were justified, but the trouble did not arise between the owners of the vineyard and the men.

Mr. STEPHEN: What was the answer, and does the hon. Gentleman approve of the answer?

Mr. FOOT: Of course I know and I approve of the answer. For myself I would say that the unemployed man should not suffer because he is unemployed, but I want to guard against this if I can. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) took a very proper stand on this matter when it came before the Committee. He brushed aside all considerations about this being an insurance fund and when he was questioned he said that he and his friends stood for the principle of work or maintenance, a definite job or benefit—nothing more and nothing less. I think that is a perfectly understandable attitude and I appreciate the position that he and his colleagues took up, but this is not the principle of work or maintenance. If it is to be done, let it come forward as a proper scheme and not as part of an insurance scheme where you collect contributions from many people, who can have those contributions protected only by ourselves. There is an obligation in regard to those people who have been paying in and who have no choice in the matter. I do not want to quote trade union regulations, although they were quoted by the Minister. Every trade union regulation has this provision and insists on the obligation upon the man himself to seek work. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are voluntary organizations!"] Whether voluntary or not, surely my hon. Friends will realise that there is just as much obligation to look after the money contributed and with which we have to deal as there is for a trade union to look after the money contributed by their members.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: The point I make is that you cannot get out of the State schemes but you can out of these others.

Mr. FOOT: That is certainly no argument. I was submitting that we had the interest of these contributors in our
hands and, whether we like it or not, we are the trustees for them and must discharge that trust in the same way that we discharge our trust in the case of national money. Therefore, I think in this Clause the Bill goes further than it has any right to do, and although I welcome the concessions that have been made by the Minister and what else has been done in the Bill to help to meet the needs of the unemployed, I cannot see that there is any case for this new Clause, and unless there is some additional and more convincing argument than I have yet heard, I shall very reluctantly be obliged to withdraw my continued support from this Bill, which I have been very glad to give so far. I simply ask it we ought not to have in relation to national funds a similar obligation to that which exists in every well-managed trade union in the country. That contention, not easily made, I submit in all sincerity for the consideration of the House.

Mr. MAXTON: I have listened twice to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) upon this same Clause, and, as in previous cases, I have been tremendously impressed with the fact that he is a man genuinely and honestly struggling with what is an intellectual and moral difficulty for himself. There are two moral difficulties in relation to this: first, he is afraid that when the onus to look for a job is taken off the man, that man will not look for it.

Mr. FOOT: In some instances.

Mr. MAXTON: I represent a constituency that is very badly hit by unemployment. I know the men and women who have been unemployed for extended periods, and on their behalf I say that the devices, schemes, private enterprise and initiative that they show in the attempt to earn a living—selling newspapers in the streets, calling at the doors exchanging old clothes for earthenware and pottery, selling rosettes of the rival colours at football matches and going round various places where crowds congregate, in the attempt to make a living for themselves—the amount of private enterprise and initiative shown by those people, who are supposed to be the down and outs, is very much greater than any I have seen on the part of private Members in this House during the years I have been here. Here for
the most part we follow like sheep, but there those people, driven back on their own resources, make all sorts of attempts to find work for themselves in any method of earning a livelihood. I do not see the danger of the principle of self-help, private enterprise and initiative being destroyed, even supposing that the failure of statesmen, industrialists and financiers in these last eight or nine years has made it impossible for all the population to be employed at any one time. That is the important point which the hon. Member should get into his Fnind—that the system cannot employ the whole population which is prepared to work, and the man who is unemployed cannot decide. He has no power to decide what the bulk of unemployment is going to be. It is we here who have the major responsibility, and the captains of industry and so on outside. More and more it is recognised that if this failure to employ the men of our working population is to be rectified in the future, it is here that it is going to be done. An unemployed man cannot reduce the total number of unemployed by one; he can only decide that he is going to be in and somebody else is going to be out.
We, as representing the whole community have no right to take advantage of the position. We have a duty to see that the man who is outside the range of employment which the community can provide has got to be maintained decently and in decent physical conditions. Nobody in this House attempts to deny him that right. Nobody would get up and dare to say plainly, bluntly and honestly, that that man has got to starve if he is unemployed. But hon. Members and right hon. Members above the Gangway seem to think that if he is maintained in a definite irregular way by a cross between private charity and the Poor Law, his character, self-respect and independence of spirit are maintained. If by a series of devices and subterfuges he gets a penny here and sixpence there, scrounging on his friends and relatives and the Poor Law, his self-respect and manhood remain, but if he walks down honestly to the Employment Exchange, and signs his name and gets his money, in some way he is debilitated morally. It is far more decent, it far more makes for man-
liness if there be a straight bargain between the man and the community, and that is what this Bill does with reference to the unemployed man.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to make some apologies for surrendering to his so-called extremists. [Interruption.] Let me say that he made some sort of defence against the charge that he had surrendered; I do not want to spoil a good point by putting it in language that is not absolutely accurate. I may say, incidentally, that it is one of the greatest jokes against present-day society that the man who comes here and asks for an extra 3s. for an unemployed man can be dubbed an extremist. That is a joke on the whole body politic, but I hope that there will be many similar surrenders, if they are to be called surrenders. I hope that this House as a whole will not regard it as undignified for the Government to alter their proposals in the face of the genuine criticism of this House.
The other point which my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin is worrying about is that men who are employed should receive less than what they can receive when unemployed. I am disturbed about that, but not very much disturbed about it, for surely the remedy is the obvious one of not to get the unemployed man down below the level of the lowest scale of wages that is paid anywhere in the country, but to get. the least paid man anywhere well above the allowances that are paid for unemployment. At the proper moment, the group with which I am more closely associated will present in this Chamber a scheme to secure a living income going into every home and to every employed man.

Mr. FOOT: A married man with three children receiving unemployment benefit will get more than any agricultural worker.

Mr. MAXTON: I will make special arrangements to have sent to the hon. Member the living wage proposals of the Independent Labour party.

Mr. FOOT: Before the hon. Member sends it to me, will he convert and convince his own Front Bench?

Mr. MAXTON: Can two things go on simultaneously? I am not casting my bread on one particular set of waters only, and I think that I can say on
behalf of my Friends that we shall be delighted to send a copy of our scheme for raising the wages of the workers to every Member of the Liberal party. I think that our funds will stand that. It seems to me that that is the intelligent, the sane and the moral way of cutting into the vicious circle which a vicious social order has created. You have got to begin somewhere, and here is a point where we should begin. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not accept the higher level of scales that we proposed, because I believe that those scales would just provide a basic physical efficiency. After all, when you have argued all round the question of demoralisation and self respect, it is, fundamentally, a question of physical efficiency —the ability to keep yourself fed and clothed decently. A man driven on by fear of starvation cannot be considered in the category of moral or non-moral at all; he is driven on by pure physical necessity. The question whether a man is moral or non-moral arises only after he has got the material things of life. I hope that the hon. Member for Bodmin and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) will both depart from their niggling attitude towards this Measure, wipe out the sins of the past, and come into the Lobby in support of the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. CULVERWELL: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has made a speech which is generally familiar to us, and I cannot help thinking that it is a waste of time at this late stage of the Bill to address to the House a speech of that sort, which he must have made on many occasions upstairs to Members of his own party. It is a speech with which the right hon. Lady must be very familiar by this time, and it is one which has been successful in securing the abandonment of her resistance to the extremists. At this stage of the Bill, I do not wish to pursue the arguments of the hon. Gentleman; but I would like to express my strong opposition to this Bill, an opposition which has been in no way broken down by listening to most of the debates which have taken place on the Bill. Nearly every speech has convinced me more than when I first saw the Bill that this Measure is vicious in principle and will be burdensome in practice.
My first great objection to it is one shared by every Member on this side of the House, the Bill abandons the whole spirit of insurance, and, instead of being an Insurance Bill, is really a poor relief Measure. It draws into insurance a class of persons among whom there need be little unemployment. I do not wish again to go into the figures which indicate a decrease in the number of juveniles and a consequent shortage of unemployment among them in the next few years. I am sure hon. Members opposite will find that these young boys and girls are being asked by the Minister to contribute to the fund either in order to bolster it up, or else that they will be led into the temptation of living in idleness. That is my first objection to the Bill, that it brings into insurance a new class of workers amongst whom there is little chance of unemployment, and can only have the effect of either demoralising them or of using their contributions to bolster up the fund.
My second great objection, which is shared by all the Members of the Conservative party and, judging by the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), by a great many Members of the Liberal party, is that in the middle of the proceedings on this Bill, which was the result of many months of consultation and careful consideration, the Minister has changed the whole principle on which benefit has been paid out in the past. She has altered the whole basis of the Bill, and shifted the onus of proof from the claimant on to a Government Department. If anything is a surrender to the extremists, that is. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was not singing quite so high a note to-night as I thought he might have sung, because if there is one Member of the House who has emerged in triumph from these debates, it is surely he, supported by his friends. He has secured from the right hon. Lady against her better judgment, a complete surrender on what we regard as a vital principle regarding the paying out of unemployment benefit. If I may use a simile without being disrespectful, I would suggest that for a long time the right hon. Lady has been engaged to the hon. Member for Bridgeton, but that since June, when the banns were put up, she has been carrying on with the right hon. Member
for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). For months she has accumlated evidence in support of her behaviour, and came down to the House, accompanied by her legal adviser, fully prepared to defend herself against the action which the hon. Member for Bridgeton was bringing aginst her, an action for breach of promise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] In the middle of the trial she abandons her defence, gives up her new love, the right hon. Member for Tamworth, and returns to her old love. I think that is a correct summing-up of the situation, and the right hon. Lady must not be surprised if we on this side of the House accuse her of fickleness, instability and weakness. I only wish I could think that the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bridgeton would live happily ever afterwards, but I am confident that she will never derive happiness from association with such a spendthrift as the hon. Member for Bridgeton, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it pretty clear this evening that the hon. Member will never receive such a liberal allowance as will satisfy him.
That brings me to the third great objection which we on this side have to this Bill. It was the objection which was brought against it by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at the beginning of the discussions on the Bill, when he spoke in very forcible terms. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the heavy cost of this Measure, and pointed out that, whilst individual items of expenditure could be justified in this House, and were exceedingly difficult to resist as individual items, yet in their cumulative effect they imposed such a burden 'as made it impossible for industry to carry on; but in spite of that the Members of the party of which he is leader have spent most of the time since in proposing Amendments which would have added to instead of lessening the cost of the Bill. I would like to refer to a speech made the other day by the Lord Privy Seal. He realises the great burden which our social services impose on the competitive power of our industries in world markets. He realises, as members of his party are beginning to realise, and as, apparently, they did not understand during the Election, that you cannot add to the burden of the social services in the way this
Government are doing without crippling the competitive power of our industries in world markets. The Lord Privy Seal said:
Our social services, too, were infinitely higher than those of any other nation. They must be paid for, and could only be paid for, by exports, and that was why he refused to subscribe to the belief that we could cure unemployment by merely spending money. Any fool can spend money.
I recommend that remark to hon. Members opposite—
If you add to the dead weight of the capital of the country, you render it more difficult for your own people to compete in world markets. You do not help unemployment, you aggravate it.
That is a speech which might have been made, and, in fact, was made, by nearly every Conservative candidate at the last General Election, and for speeches like that many of us were howled down, abused and criticised at public meetings. Yet the Lord Privy Seal is a Member of a Government who have made an abject surrender of the principles which he has laid down, and of the principle., which the right hon. Lady herself had laid down previously. We can only regret that the course of the discussion on this Measure has been so much handicapped by the shilly-shallying methods of the right hon. Lady. She makes up her mind to a course, after months of deliberation, and then alters the whole principle of the Bill and asks us to sanction that alteration of principle upon the Report stage. I feel that the right hon. Member for Tam-worth had the support of most Members of the House when he complained bitterly of the gagging of the Opposition by the Government. That is the last thing one would expect from a Socialist Government, which is supposed to believe in democracy and freedom of speech, and I should like to add my protest against the regrettable manner in which this Debate has been conducted by the right hon. Lady.
Hon. Members opposite are paying far more attention to the unemployed than they are to the employed, and I believe that the working men and women of this country who, in the long run will have to pay for this costly Measure, will see how unwise it is that their savings and their contributions should be spent upon those who are not properly certified claimants on the Fund. We on this side protest against this lavish and reckless distribu-
tion of public money. It is by these methods, by this half-hearted attempt, this first instalment, the effort to fulfil the fantastic and impracticable promises which hon. Members made at the last election that they will be judged. They will not be judged by a lavish and reckless distribution of money but by the amount of unemployment which the Government finds for the people by a sound and economic policy.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: It has at last been recognised that the responsibility for unemployment must be placed upon the Government. There is really no way out of it. Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House wriggle and try to put the cost of the maintenance of the unemployed first on this fund and then on the other, but ultimately their action makes it clear that they are quite aware of the fact that in the end you have somehow or other to support your unemployed. Full responsibility for the unemployed is now frankly accepted by this House through the various Bills which we have passed. I want to point out that what the Government have done has been done in order to meet this responsibility. The Government, have decided to cover the risks of unemployment by a form of insurance. It is said in the last resort that you must take care of the people who are thrown out of employment, and the way the Government propose to do it is by supporting an insurance scheme and accepting the ultimate risk for which they practically admit responsibility.
In the first place, this insuranuce scheme is a very imperfect attempt to take on the full responsibility for the social conditions for which they admit responsibility. This Unemployment Insurance Bill has come along, and it has taken as a step further to the full condition of State insurance for unemployment. It is an admission taking us a long step further along the line of acceptance by the State of full insurance responsibility for the unemployed man. The Government have not attempted to get rid of that responsibility; they are attempting to organise their acceptance of that responsibility, and I have no doubt that every civilised country in the world, sooner or later, will follow our example and accept the principle of national insurance. On the other side, there have been various attempts to show
that this is not an Insurance Bill, and I wish to reply to that argument by saying that this Bill is far more an Insurance Bill than the one which preceded it. It is an insurance against unemployment. It is an insurance against unemployment in the same way that one can get in the City of London an insurance against fire, except that in this case, on account of the conditions prevailing and the responsibility of the Government, it is made compulsory, but the principle is the same.
10.0 p.m.
Those who are opposed to this Measure say: "No, the unemployed ought to be made to seek work, and have the responsibility thrown upon them." That suggestion is quite inconsistent with the practice that applies with regard to fire insurance. If I have a loss in my house through fire, the only thing I have to prove is that the article destroyed was destroyed by fire, but, if the insurance society wishes to dispute (my claim and say, "Yes, there has been a fire, but you made it yourself," the onus of proof is upon the insurance society and not upon me. With regard to unemployment insurance, the principle, which has now been fully accepted by the Government, will be more and more accepted by future Governments until the whole responsibility for the care of the unemployed falls upon a properly constituted Insurance Fund. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to adopt quite a different principle from that which has been adapted by the fire insurance people. The only thing you ought to have to prove with regard to unemployment is that you are unemployed, and, if you are unemployed, then you are entitled under any proper insurance scheme to insurance benefit so long as you are unemployed. Hon. Members opposite say that a man may be unemployed by his own action because he will not accept work. In that case, the onus of proof rests upon those who dispute the fact. This Bill contains the much disputed Clause 4, which adopts the true principles of insurance. Until we adopted that Clause and worked out this principle along the lines now proposed, we had not brought unemployment insurance up to the same business footing as insurance against fire, and other risks which you can insure against in the City of London. All you have to prove in the case of fire insurance and other risks is your lass. If it is alleged that your
loss is self-imposed by your own action, the onus of proof rests upon the insurance society. At last, the Government have put the unemployed insured man upon a proper footing, and, if he falls into unemployment, whether it is due to his own action or somebody else's, the onus of proof is upon the State.
In the country, there are three parties to our system of national insurance. There is the employé who is a compulsory contributor, and there is also the employer who is likewise a compulsory contributor. In addition to these two parties, the State comes along as a third party but with an unlimited liability. By the mere fact of making unemployment insurance compulsory, the State accepts the liability to pay the scale of benefits whenever unemployment occurs. In other words, it accepts unlimited liability. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just told us that insurance has been adjusted to this particular case. The State, as a third party to the insurance, is bound to take up its unlimited liability and meet the necessities of the situation, and to see that every unemployed man is insured.
If I am correct in my reading of this Bill as the nearest approach that we have yet made to a competent and complete insurance against unemployment I want to say that to some extent it is an epoch-making Bill because it deals with unemployment along the only lines upon which you can deal with it until you can find, as the Government are trying to find, other means for dealing with unemployment—the only lines upon which in a civilised community you can really meet unemployment. I am persuaded that, although successive Governments will take every step they can to increase the volume of employment, if you like by stimulating trade, they will never go back upon the principle of insurance that is now adopted, and that what we are laying now is the foundation stone of a system of insurance that shall adequately deal with the problem of unemployment in our community. That, to me, is one of the great virtues of the Bill.
I have listened to speeches from the other side, but not one of them would convince a man who is capable of thinking out the problem from the social point of view. They all deal with small
quibbles—the quibble, for instance, that this is an addition to the cost of our social services. Is not the Poor Law a social service I The Poor Law unfortunately is a social service, although I am one of those who believe that it is in process of disappearing, of being dissolved into its component parts, to be dealt with in a way entirely different from that which has been handed down to us from Elizabethan days. That costs money, and unless hon. Members opposite will take the courage of their convictions and say that, rather than add to the social burdens of this community—whether they are burdens contributed to through the taxes or whether they are burdens contributed to through the rates —they would rather that the unemployed man dropped down in his tracks and died, it is not for them to complain that this Government by their action have added to the cost of our social services. It is quite clear however that they are not prepared to take that line, and their argument is a mere quibble, a mere attempt to put on to the local ratepayer the cost which rightly belongs to the State.
If there is one thing that is more clear than another to anybody who is a student of unemployment and its causes, it is that unemployment is not a matter that arises from local conditions, but that it arises from national causes. Anything that affects our trade, for instance, will immediately react on such localities as West Ham and the great Division that I represent, the Division of Romford, where a large number of dock labourers live. The unemployed there have to be supported by the Board of Guardians when they have run out of benefit by leaps and bounds through any prolonged trouble in the docks of London, although the docks are outside my own particular constituency.
The problem is a national one. I am not saying that on this side or on that that we have arrived at the solution of it, but, so long as we admit that it arises from national causes over which the individual victims have no control at all, we as a House must not only face up to our responsibility, we must not only inquire into the causes, but we must not shrink under the burden that has been voluntarily undertaken in this and preceding Parliaments, of facing up to the ultimate financial costs of keeping these
victims of an industrial system which we have not created, but which we are carrying on, and for which we are not responsible except as regards studying and finding the proper one to put in its place. We must face up to the necessity of meeting the needs of these people and keeping them at least in a. physical condition to become fit citizens of this country. That is an unavoidable necessity.
I rejoice in this Bill although it is only a small beginning. Hon. Members on the back benches behind me have complained about the 2s. for children. To offer 2s. for children is to belittle our own species; I say so frankly in this House. To offer a woman 2s. to keep her child—an English child, a precious gift to the community—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but there is no more precious gift than a well-born child to this community, and I say that to offer the mother of a child 2s. a week is to belittle our own race and to put into contempt and disdain our own species. If I were going away for a holiday, I should hesitate to ask an hon. Member opposite, who might possibly be a friend of mine, to take care of a dog while I was away and to offer him 2s. for its keep. I should be ashamed to do it. But here we have had to accept the situation. I say, however, that, although these benefits are necessarily limited, they contain the principle which in this House we have more and more to face up to, namely, that we are responsible for keeping the men and women who through no fault of their own are thrown out from any opportunity or avenue of earning their own living—for keeping them in such a condition of physical and moral welfare that they will not cease to be citizens of this country.

Mr. E. BROWN: I do not share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Rumford (Mr. Muggeridge), and I doubt if he will in 12 or 18 months' time—

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: We will have another Bill.

Mr. BROWN: All I can say is that, if the hon. Member says that, he does not believe in his own argument about this being an Insurance Bill and an insurance system. Under this Bill money is to be spent in certain ways which, if I had my way, I would spend in other ways.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Which way?"] For instance, I would rather have had a reduction of the waiting period than an increase of 2s. for dependants. [Interruption.] I was asked the question, and I answered it. I take the Bill as it is. To me the heart of the Bill is in what was known as Clause 4, and I am bound to say that I welcome the change that has been made. I do not agree with the statement that has been made that it was a climb-down on the part of the right hon. Lady to the extremists. The men who are known as extremists in this House had very little to do with that change; speeches came from every quarter of the Chamber in favour of the change. Moreover, whether or no the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) approves of the change, he certainly did not approve of the Clause as it was originally drafted. He made that quite clear on the Second Reading. Let me recall to his mind what he said. Whatever he may say about the present Clause, in discussing the original Clause he made the same criticism that I made myself when I first read it. He said:
The tests proposed are of a vague and unsatisfactory character, and that opinion is shared by a great many people on the right hon. Lady's side of the House. She says with the utmost assurance that this proposal shifts the onus from the applicant to the Employment Exchange but some of her own colleagues say with equal emphasis that it leaves the onus where it is now."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1929; col. 763, Vol. 232.]
There is another point in the same speech to which I will come in a moment, but I want to say about this change that it is a victory of the House of Commons over the Departmental mind. A great deal has been said inside the House and outside in recent months about the new despotism. This is the third major Bill dealing with this problem on which I. have spoken in the last five years. There has been the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), and this Bill. It is lime that this House, as a House, paid attention to the deep-seated feeling in the necessitous areas, where the bulk of these men are to be found. The House in 1924 accepted too easily the adaptation from extended benefit to standard
benefit of the words "genuinely seeking work." The right hon. Gentleman's mechanical majority in 1927 in my judgment—II said so- when I sat two seats behind here — accepted Departmental opinion far too easily as to the effect of his rendering of the necessary legal formula to put into operation the phrase "genuinely seeking work."
The Bill gives me one thing that I want. Whether it gives it in the way that I want it is another matter. It gives me, for the first time, an objective test which is to be applied by the insurance officer to the case of men seeking benefit. Whatever the higher officials of the Department may think, the officials who have to do the practical administration in the Employment Exchanges will welcome having to deal with objectives rather than subjective tests. It is no wonder that Members for industrial seats feel warmly about the matter. The old system was called "not making every reasonable effort." In 10 months in 1926 in the port of Leith, where there are 25,000 insured persons and nearly 5,000 unemployed, through no fault of their own. There were 445 claims ruled out. Under "not genuinely seeking work" in the 10 months of this year there were 1,357 claims disallowed.
There is no man who knows the port of Leith, or any other of these districts, who does not know that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said is literally true. The fares of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) need not trouble him. The great mass of these men, if they can smell a job, will make every effort to find it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up!"] I intend to speak up on this matter. If these 1,357 claims, representing hundreds of men, could come here to-night, they would speak up, because they would feel as warmly as I feel on their behalf. The great bulk of these men will make efforts to find available work no matter what form of words this Bill may have in it, or any other Bill. We have for the first time a chance of catching the man who is a shirker instead of getting, as we have always had before, an Act which has let slip the shirker and entrapped the honest man. The re-drafted Clause 4 in a faint degree, at any rate, shows that the House of Commons at last is more aware than the Department has been, or than
Ministers have been, as to the deep-seated feeling there is in these areas as to these subjective tests and their results. The form of words in my judgment gives the insurance officers a great deal more power than some of my friends recognise. I shall not be surprised in a month or two to hear complaints that the objective tests are not too mild but too stringent.

Mr. HOFFMAN: You are supporting it.

Mr. BROWN: I am. Nevertheless I say that. It is far better to give the insurance officers a situation in which there is a definite question to be put and a definite procedure to be followed, and a definite judgment to be given, than to put into the Bill this vague and unsatisfactory test to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) referred in his Second Reading speech, or the vague and unsatisfactory laws we have passed in previous days. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not only point out the vague and unsatisfactory nature of the original Clause but he pointed out that it might be said that the diligence test proposed in that Clause might be worse than the genuinely seeking work Clause of the 1927 Bill.

Major ELLIOT: indicated assent.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees and stands by his words. It is not necessary for me to say another word. If he says his words about the reasonableness and the diligence of the claimants' efforts are on Third Reading what they were on Second Reading, there is only one way you can evade the issue you there raise, and that is by putting into your Act the objective test. That test is in this Bill, not because of concessions to the extremists, but because at last, the House of Commons not possessing on the Government side a mechanical majority, but arguing out, I am afraid with some passion, what is really the case as to the effect in these black spots, which have been black spots so long we shall be able to go to our constituents and tell them they will be able to satisfy, not a vague form of words which the House of Commons cannot make fit two millions of differing cases, but objective tests. For that reason, I shall go and vote for the Third
Reading of this Bill with more satisfaction than I did on the other two major Bills on which I have bad to vote on previous occasions.

Major SALMON: Those of us who had the privilege of listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night must have been surprised when he totally evaded one important point in the Memorandum of the Ministry of Labour. In paragraph (8) it says that it must not be overlooked that the new provision may have the effect of bringing a certain number of persons into benefit, for example, married women who have done little or no work since marriage and seasonal workers during the "off season." The point I want to make is that in arriving at the figures, the Ministry state in paragraph 11,
Excluding any charges that may arise in the case referred to in paragraph 9, the effect on the Exchequer may be summarised as follows: The increased charge on the Exchequer in 1930–1931 will be about £2,000,000.
The attention of the House and the attention of the Minister has been called to the fact that there is in existence a. real contingent liability and yet it is not being reckoned. We are told that the £2,000,000 really provides the necessary money for dealing with the new Clause 4. What strikes me most forcibly is that everyone in the House who has spoken from the Socialist benches has rather assumed that it is quite easy for the House to vote money irrespective of the fact that it is a contributory insurance scheme and not a relief of the guardians. As a matter of fact, the criticism one hears from the Socialist party about unemployment insurance to-day is that the benefits are not sufficient. If the benefits are not sufficient, they are as much as can he afforded actuarially to make the Fund sound or solvent. You can so easily increase the benefits, but, if you increase the benefits you must in return be prepared to provide for the payment of extra contributions on the part of the three parties involved, namely, the State, the employer, and the employe. That is what would be a sound proposition. That is not the recommendation of the Government. The Government's recommendations are, first of all, that they are dealing with an insolvent Fund. They say that they are the trustees of the public purse. How
do they fulfil that trusteeship? They add to the liability, not because they found the Fund insolvent. If they found it insolvent, it is no reason why they should make it worse than it is. Admitting that it is insolvent, it is insolvent from many causes. I do not want to cause a long discussion on those causes, but the fact remains, through circumstances over which the late Government had no control, that the Fund did become insolvent. What has arisen? The Fund is insolvent. The Government say: "We will increase the rates to the unemployed. Not only that, hut we arc going to brush away all the protection that the Fund has had in the past a $ regards the provision for genuinely, seeking work. I believe that the introduction of the new Clause 4 will have a psychological effect upon vast numbers of persons. In the past they knew that they must attempt to get work, because they realised that they had to go through a very severe examination. I believe Plat the psychological effect of doing away with the existing protection will mean an increase in unemployment. When one hears it suggested by hon. Members opposite that it is a good thing to increase benefit because that will force, up wages, I reply that that is a very unsound argument, and one that is bound, not to increase wages but to decrease wages.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Is the hon. and gallant Member addressing me?

Major SALMON: I am addressing the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Max-ton). My point is, that the more money you distribute through the Unemployment Insurance Fund, which money if not provided by the three contributors must be provided by the Exchequer, the greater is the charge upon industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the responsibility, and says: "I am finding the deficiency." Of course he is finding it, but at our expense. He is finding it at the expense of industry, and the mere fact of the right hon. Gentleman having to find the money at the expense of industry means that he has to increase taxation. Some hon. Members opposite may think that it is a very good thing to increase taxation, but it has been proved time after time that the higher the taxation the greater the burden upon industry. In these days, as we have been
often reminded, even by Members of the Socialist party, what we require is an increased export trade. If you are going to kill the manufacturer by forcing upon him such taxes, local and national, that he is not able to manufacture and compete with the world, you are not going to decrease unemployment but increase it.
Hon. Members opposite say that there is not sufficient being paid under the present insurance scheme to those who are out of work, but I would remind them that the cost of living has gone down since the time when the present rates were agreed upon.

Mr. McKINLAY: Is it not a fact that the cost of living has gone up?

Major SALMON: The cost of living has gone up during the time that the present Government have been in office. The Minister, who will reply, will be able to say that since she has been at the Ministry of Labour the cost of living has gone up, but during the period when the Conservatives were the dominant party the cost of living went down. We must not look upon this from a sentimental point of view. If we are going to deal with this as an insurance scheme, let us treat it as an insurance company would treat it. I wonder whether an insurance company, having a report from their actuary as to the contingent liabilities which exists by reason of the new Clause 4, would be prepared to offer the rates which are proposed in this Bill? I think they would not. They would recognise their responsibilities. The great trouble of the Socialist party, as was said by the Minister of Health, is that they have only to wish for a certain thing and they can have it; the country can afford it. What does it mean. It means that whilst they are pandering and promising, and giving large sums of money away, they are creating very great burdens for industry upon which we all depend. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not out of industry; it is out of profits!"] We cannot live in this country except by our industries, and however you may argue, this will prove to be true. I hope the House will accept the Amendment and reject the Bill. Instead of being a good thing for unemployment it will only increase unemployment and do irreparable damage to this country in the near future.

Mr. SEXTON: I do not propose to detain the House for any length of time. I have only a few words to say, and they will not be controversial. I should not intervene at all, because the case for the Bill has been fully made out, but for the fact that I desire to say that the right hon. Lady has performed a most difficult task with that characteristic courage and ability that I always believed she possessed. Even her opponents on the other side of the House will admit that she has piloted this Bill through Committee stage and up to the present moment with great ability. She has found friends in unexpected quarters, and enemies where they ought not to have appeared. That is all I wanted to say. I heartily congratulate the right hon. Lady at the end of her task on the manner in which she has performed it. She has done excellent service which I think is recognised in all parts of the House.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I should like to associate myself as a very junior Member of the Opposition with the observations which have just been made by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton). We all realise on this side of the House, whatever we may think about other ladies, that the right hon. Lady has a heart—

Mr. HOFFMAN: And a head—

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Yes, and a head too. I do not think we can allow this Debate to conclude without congratulating the right hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).

Mr. HOFFMAN: Right honourable?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I beg his pardon, honourable, but not right. I think we ought to congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgeton upon his great triumph.

Mr. HOFFMAN: It is not his triumph. You are wrong.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: When I saw him sitting in his place he looked sad. There are moments when success makes one sad, especially when one thinks how much more successful one might have been. I am sure that he wished to be far more successful even than he has been, I would not have intervened had it not been for a challenge offered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who indulged in a far wider
field of controversy than the present Bill. He went back not only to unemployment, but to the causes of this Bill; he went back and blamed the last Government for their financial policy; he said that he held them entirely responsible for the present situation. What do you think, Mr. Speaker, are the two functions in home government which are most necessary, which were most necessary during the last four years? The first, I suppose, was economy—above all things it was necessary to retrench. The second, I suppose, was to spend more money upon the social services, upon those who find the struggle in life difficult. What would you say of the Government which achieved both those things, which, whereas it spent in 1928 something like £20,000,000 less than the Socialists in 1924, spent something like £12,000,000 more on social services That may be regarded as a triumph of financial policy which right hon. Gentlemen opposite can not possibly evade—[Interruption]

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members to give the hon. Member a patient hearing.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: There is another aspect of the Debate which cannot escape attention, and that in spite of the black ingratitude of the Front Bench opposite. That is the magnificent part which has been played in these Debates by my right hon. and junior Member for Preston (Sir W. Jowitt). I do not know whether he was present in the House on Friday. If he had been he would have heard one of the Secretaries of State say that after the mess which the lawyers had made of this Bill it was time that a layman—and such a layman! —intervened to save the situation. The right hon. and junior Member for Preston, the Attorney-General, deserves the very highest prize from hon. Members opposite for the magnificent pieces of sophistry in which he has indulged during these Debates. I am referring to a speech which he made on the first Thursday on which the Bill was discussed. He then said:
I do not want any hon. Member to be under the impression that because we have taken this course in regard to Sub-section (1) we have therefore in any way weakened the position which we take in regard to Subsections (2) and (3). If I allowed the Committee to believe that, I should be in danger
of misleading it. "—[OFFIEIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1929; col. 2641, vol. 232.]
It is my business to stand up for him, because we lawyers, irrespective of party, must all hang together. At that time the right hon. Gentleman was pressed by his Front Bench, by his Government, and of course he had to say what he did. Therefore we were not surprised when certain eventualities happened and we found him saying something quite different on the following Thursday. He said on that occasion:
I do not make the smallest apology for having had the wisdom and good sense and courage to give effect to my second thoughts. If we are not to be influenced by what is said in the course of the Debate, then debate becomes a mere formality."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1929; col. 726, Vol. 233.]
But had he been influenced by what was said in the Debate? He showed no signs of it on the previous Thursday. He fell back upon the collective wisdom of the House. We on this side are growing accustomed to know that the collective wisdom of the House means the pressure brought on right hon. Gentlemen opposite by the hon. Member for Bridgeton. I do not blame the Attorney-General. He was speaking not merely for his Government, but for his party—for the whole united party. He was holding a magnificent brief and he argued it splendidly, and I think he ill deserves attacks by the Secretary of State for Scotland upon his competence or his clarity of mind. I think that sometimes when he sits on those ungrateful benches opposite, he must cast a longing eye back to that small country from which he came—that country which may be regarded as a buffer State, but which, in reality, at this time controls the whole political situation. He may regret leaving it and he may want to return to it, but I think he will find some little difficulty in passing the immigration authorities. I believe that he is regarded in his old party as one who is politically dead and I understand, although I have not been there, that an epitaph to him has been erected in the National Liberal Club inscribed, "Not lost, but gone before." There is no doubt that after this Debate, in spite of the dissensions between the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) the Liberals will, in a body, follow their hon. and right hon. Friends of the
party opposite into the Lobby, because we know, as the prophet said:
The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib.

Major, ELLIOT: After the intervention of my hon. Friend who has just sat down the House will not be disposed to think lightly of lawyers or to regret their contributions to our discussion. [Interruption.] We have not all had the honour of being High Commissioner for the King to the Church of Scotland and it is well known that the corps to which my hon. Friend belongs is colloquially known as "The Devil's Own." But if the House will allow me I will depart from the controversy between those skilled and analytical intellects, the lawyers of the House of Commons. We have had speeches from the Attorney-General of which one could only say that they were too convincing; they succeeded in making a perfect case on the one side, and, a week later, an even more convincing case on the other side. It is to the wider issues which have emerged from the long Debates on this subject that we should address ourselves in the closing stages of the discussion. The points which have emerged from the consideration of this Bill are all of secondary importance compared with the main one, that there is a fundamental difference of opinion as to the objects of this Bill between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). It is a perilous situation because the House is not getting clear guidance and does not know where it is going. First one rein of the horse is pulled, arid then the other, and there is not that clear direction for which the House would look to the Government Benches at this moment of all others.
The House of Commons was assured only to-night by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the purpose of this Bill is to vote the fund into a state of solvency. I took down his words, and I have no doubt that those words express the intention with which he has scrutinised his actions and with which he has acquiesced in the expenditure of the sums of money which he has sanctioned in the final stages of this Bill. But that is not the purpose of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, nor the
purpose of the hon. Members who sit and vote with him, nor the purpose of that powerful organisation in the Liberal party which offers to circularise them with yet more circulars and books and information. Surely, if the soul of a party could be saved by paper, the Liberal party's soul has been put beyond the range of damnation. The hon. Member's function was to bring it home to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the purpose of this Bill was not to vote the fund into a Slate of solvency, but to vote the unemployed man into a state of solvency.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Hear, hear!

Major ELLIOT: Of course, the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Hoffman), undismayed even by the rebuke of Mr. Speaker, comes chiming in; at any rate, he is opposed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whoever else is agreed with him. The purpose of these two sections is fundamentally different, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer's object is to stop the leaks in the fund, but the hon. Member for Bridgeton's purpose is to increase the leaks in the fund. The hon. Member for Bridgeton has put before himself and his organisation the simple object of raising the consuming power of the masses of this country by the process of voting to them larger and larger sums of public money, and he is honestly convinced that by doing that all our difficulties will be swept away. He says there is no need for finding overseas markets, that the markets are at home, that there is no need to develop our trade within or without the Empire, and that in the markets in Manchester, in Sheffield, in Glasgow, and in London we have the source of all the trade that is needed. All that is needed is to increase the unemployment benefit, to relax the restrictions on the spending of public money, to pile up the expenditure, and no harm can come or will come to the country from that process. The more money you give to the unemployed, the more they will themselves create the market that this country desires; and in one of those epigrams of which he alone has the secret he says he would enable the unemployed man to eat his way back into a job.
I do not think I have unfairly stated the contention of the hon. Member and those who sit with him, but that is funda
mentally opposed to the argument which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed to the House this night, and the danger of the situation is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bending and weakening and surrendering to the demands of the hon. Member for Bridgeton and his friends, without in any way acceding to the fundamental thesis upon which those demands are based. That seems to me to be a situation of peril, a situation which this House will have more and more brought home to it in the days which are immediately ahead. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was moving, he hoped, towards a state of greater and greater solvency. He said he would refuse to be judged by one year's result of his finance.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Hear, hear!

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member for Central Sheffield, like a cuckoo clock, comes chiming in. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is making the case that he is gathering together the resources of the nation, that be is husbanding them. He wishes to reduce the floating Debt, to do everything possible to oonserve the national resources, and to promote economy, and by that means to bring the country back—for it is back that he looks, not forward—to the halcyon days when he was in power in 1924 and left the magnificent surplus of which he was so proud to his successor in office, to whom he feels so very little kindliness in any other way. He is willing to inherit money from him, but he cannot credit him with any other merits. Both of these Chancellors of the Exchequer regarded themselves as the watchdogs of the Treasury. They regarded it as their purpose to restrain expenditure. They regarded it as their purpose, if they spent money, to spend it with a grudge and to keep down expenses. The majority of his own party—not merely extremists but mass upon mass of the staid everyday members of the party—regard that as a heresy which they will do their best to root out of the Government and the Front Bench.
If we are to accept the position which the Chancellor lays down, then we can look forward with a certain degree of equanimity to the future of the county. Although heavy burdens are laid upon us, we are chastened for our good. Al-
though the Chancellor puts on taxes and levies of this kind, he is doing it to restore the state of the national finances. Our objection is that as fast as he gathers these resources they are scattered to the winds again by members of his own party. Like the web of Penelope, everything that the Chancellor weaves during the day the hon. Member for Bridgeton undoes during the night. Under those conditions, economy was far from the achievements of the household of Penelope, and, when the master of the house finally came back, he found that a sad amount of waste and revelry had taken place during his absence.
I do not wish to follow the Chancellor into the analysis he gave of the National finances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because I am anxious not to press unduly on the time of the House on the Third Reading of what is, after all, an Unemployment Insurance Bill. If I were to follow the Chancellor into the very wide field into which he ambled, I should want a much longer time, and we know that the right hon. Lady is nearing the conclusion of her long task, and is anxious to come to the end of it, and so am I. The Chancellor failed altogether either to grasp or to answer the contentions which hon. Members have brought against him from this side. Our contention was not in respect of national money which he is pouring into the fund to restore its solvency. Our contention has been that, while he is pouring this money into the fund to restore its solvency, other hon. Members are opening fresh crevices in the fund through which the money is pouring out. The surrender which was made to the back benches of his party opens a new avenue of expenditure which bears both upon the Exchequer and upon the fund.
For the first time, as far as I know, the Minister responsible for the fund comes down and presents an account by the Government Actuary. It says that, if the figures of unemployment remain those upon which the whole of the calculations of this Bill are based—not merely the new Clause 4 but the whole Bill, and not merely hasty calculations which took place on Friday after the Thursday's Debate, but the calculation of five or six months, based on the whole period of (he right hon. Lady's administration—we must realise that the additional ex-
penditure is such as will involve an increase in the debt of the fund during the year by upwards of 2,000,000. There is no provision of any kind made to meet that. There is no provision made to increase the borrowing powers nor are fresh contributions asked for, not merely from workmen and employers but from the State. The expenditure to be provided for by the right hon. Gentleman goes to some £14,000,000 over and above what was found in the year before, and, in addition to this expenditure, we are now being asked to put the fund into a new deficit. This is the first time that a Minister responsible has come down and said, "Vote me a deficit which I see no way to meet."
We shall pass from the Third Reading of this Bill to-night to the first of the new Supplementary Estimates, that for £3,500,000 for the Ministry of Labour. We were assured by the Prime Minister that that might or might not carry us on until we meet again in January, that it might or might not suffice the Fund, that it would be necessary for yet further sums of public money to be voted into this Fund; and, however we took it, if the figure of 1,200,000 people unemployed holds—and these are the figures given, not by us, but by the Government Actuary—the debt on the Fund will have risen by £2,000,000 during the year, and it will be necessary either to increase the floating debt, or to borrow more money, or raise the contributions, or to declare that the Fund is bankrupt and cannot. pay the benefits which it is proposed that it should pay.
These trust funds are matters which it is very necessary for the House to regard closely. There are, for example, two trust funds, with one of which I was closely connected, which were raised last year on behalf of the miners in England and Scotland. The trustees of the Scottish fund paid a more lavish scale of benefits. I was one of the trustees on behalf of the Government contribution. The miners, who were after all the main beneficiaries, asked for an increase in the scale; they said the money was there, and asked for a greater distribution of benefits. We did our best to point out that money was slowly gathered and quickly scattered. In May, the last Government went out of Office and the new Govern-
ment came in. All through the summer the distribution from the Fund proceeded at the increased rate. The English fund was more sparingly used and more jealously guarded. I put a question to the responsible Minister for the English fund a week or two ago, and his answer was that there is money in that fund to carry through the winter; the distribution can still proceed, and the same benefits can be maintained for the people who are in dire necessity in the black spots in the distressed coal-mining areas. I put the same question to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the answer was that the Scottish fund is nearly exhausted; a small sum of £10,000 has been found in the balance, and, when that has gone, there will be no more for the miners in the distressed areas of Scotland, who this winter will have to face a black winter without any assistance. The money was distributed during the summer in higher benefits, while in England it was guarded and still remained to help the English miners through the winter. [An HON. MEMBER: "What has that to do with this Bill?"] That is an example of two trust funds within our own experience, one of which was rapidly spent, and one of which was p reserved.

Mr. MAXTON: A little further back when the contributors to the National Health Insurance Fund piled up a surplus, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Government, with his approval and support, raided it.

11.0 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member is in complete error. I remember the occasion of that Debate. He has been led away by the propaganda leaflets of his own party. He ought to know how unwise it is to bring such leaflets on to the Floor of the House. No raid was made upon the funds. The Treasury under issued a certain amount of the money which in future would be attracted to these funds by the increased amounts of money which were being piled up; but there was no raid whatever on the funds. If anybody wishes for confirmation of that, let him ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my successor, or the Minister of Health, who, I regret to see, is not in his place. The lesson of the rash use of these funds has been strikingly brought home to us by that single example. The
trust fund which was raised for the benefit of the distressed people in the black spots of the country will not be available this winter in the case of one set of people, the Scottish miners, while it will be available for the English miners. Therefore, distress will bear more harshly on the northern kingdom than on the southern kingdom. It is a lesson which we ought to remember when, as here, we are asked—

Mr. HARDIE: Does the hon. and gallant Member say that in the distribution of those funds there was any waste?

Major ELLIOT: Surely the point which the hon. Member raises is exactly the point which the House is asked to determine. We were asked to spend money without knowing where more money was coming from, just as here, on the report of the Government actuary, we are asked to- spend money out of the Insurance Fund which will run it into a deficit of £2,000,000 in the coming year—that is, on the figures which the Government actuary was given by the Ministry of Labour—without knowing where that £2,000,000 is coming from, The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "I am not to be judged on a twelve months analysis of my financial administration," but the actuary is concerned with the twelve months immediately in front of him. It is not one year ahead or two years ahead or three years ahead when these deficits to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks forward are going to accumulate on his head. That is not what the actuary is looking to. He is looking to the administration of the Fund, on which he has been asked to report, and he has to look at it over the next twelve calendar months, during which this drain falls upon it. He says:
During that time a drain greater than the income will arrive upon this fund, and I see no means whatever of meeting that drain.
The right hon. Lady said in defence of her case that it was unreasonable to suppose that all these things would fully materialise. She said we had not counted what might take place on the credit side. She said there may be a revival in trade. All one can say is that this must have been present to the minds of the responsible officials when they drew up the estimate of 1,200,000 people out of work, and it was upon these figures that the Govern-
ment actuary drew up the Report which the House has had represented to it only within the current week.
With regard to Clause 4, a great hole was knocked in the bottom of the Fund by the right hon. Lady when she accepted the decision of Thursday's Debate. Convincing as the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General and the speech of the right hon. Lady in introducing the Bill may have been, they cannot get outside the report which was presented upon, their own proposals, and they stand convicted of one of the most arrant incompetence and of a surrender which it is difficult to characterise as anything but abject when those proposals were presented to the House. Their own report says that while 65,000 persons were brought in by the original proposal another 80,000 or 90,000 were brought in by the new Clause 4. Under these circumstances what becomes of the fine -speeches which were made by the Attorney-General and others on the Treasury Bench defending the original Clause 4, knowing that it was going to strike 90,000 persons off benefit whom they afterwards decided should be added. Here was a mistake of 90,000 out of 150,000. Was that an error or did they know that their proposal would strike off 90,000 and they afterwards gave way to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his friends on this point. That is a fundamental difficulty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has failed to explain.
Did the Government know, in the first place, that 90,000 persons would be struck off by the original Clause 4, and why did hey determine to strike them off? If the Government thought their original proposal was just, why did they add another 90,000 to the register? That is a question which the House has a right to ask and demand an answer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that these contributions of public money are necessary to put the fund into a state of solvency. I will refer the right hon. Gentleman to his own White Paper, which says that the annual cost will be between £4,000,000 and £4,500,000 a year. Did the right hon. Gentleman suppose when he made that statement that he was saving that sum at the expense of those whom he afterwards said should be placed on benefit? Does the Chancellor of the
Exchequer now admit that he is spending £4,500,000 which is being improperly given to those who should not be on benefit? One or other of those two things must be true. Does the right hon. Gentleman now admit that he was in error to the extent of 90,000 or £4,500,000, and that he was an unfaithful prophet to that extent? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he was approached for another £5,000,000 and another £12,000,000 for other purposes which he could not meet. I think some of those purposes might reasonably have been held to be quite as pressing as the Bill we are considering. Was that summing up of our national needs taken coolly and calmly in a way in which our national finances should be considered? The granting of 2s. for a child was described as an insult to our species, but even that was condoned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and put on the Statute Book. Clause 4 contained the greatest evil in the Bill, and all the other evils had to go by the board. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went upstairs and said, "You must not press me any more; the box is empty, the Treasury is bare, and I cannot find you any more money."
Then we had the extraordinary position of the right hon. Gentleman coming down to the House and defending himself because of his firmness, of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, that gallant highwayman, galloping up to the Treasury windows, thrusting his pistol through, and saying, "Your money or your life!" The Chancellor of the Exchequer comes out and says, "I will take a firm stand; here is my money, but I refuse to give you my life." He has done more; he has, by turning out his pockets, convinced the highwayman that he has no more money at present, and that he must be left to go and gather some further loot.
The discussion is not between me and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or between us on this side of the House and and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman represents the old order of things, and he will not very much longer be there in power. The discussion of the future is between myself and those who sit on this side of the House, and the back-benchers on the other side. The discussion is with the younger rising force that we see there.
It will before very long overthrow the old men, whom it is already embarrassing. Some day or other the great Debate has to be broached on the Floor of this House and threshed out to its end; and it will be all the less easy to resolve as long as we have this smoke-screen put up by the so-called Iron Chancellor that he is restoring the national finances to a state of solvency.
That is not the argument that is really the driving force of his party; that is not the argument that it put in the back streets; that is not the argument that is responsible for their great majorities in the industrial cities of this country. The arguments which have been put there are the arguments from the back benches, and those are the arguments which this House as a whole will have to meet and grapple with some day. That great cause will require discussion and determination in this House, and sooner or later this House will need to make up its mind upon it. The experiment, for it is nothing more, that is being tried in this Bill will fail, and everybody knows that it will fail; and a new demand will come to this House, a new demand which will need to be resisted, at some time or other, in this House. This House is no fit trustee for public funds unless it clearly understands that there is a strong, determined and growing section which says that the business of the trustee is not to keep these funds, but to squander them. Until the House is fully seized of that position, until the House realises that behind this pasteboard facade of a respectable Government there is the real driving force of a determined effort to change fundamentally the whole basis of society in this country—[Interruption]—and to do it through the engine of taxation and through that great and powerful Department of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is nominally in control—until the House faces up to that great issue, there will be no reality in politics in this country.
Our only objection to the Debates upon these subjects is that those Debates have not approached the fundamental division of opinion which does truly exist. When that Debate comes, then this House will be crowded, then the papers will take an interest in the Debate, then the country will take an interest in the Debate. Until the time when that Debate is broached,
and the interest of the country and of the House is focussed here on the Floor of this House, this Bill might as well pass as another, for all these Bills are fundamentally unreal, and will need to be swept into a wastepaper-basket within the next 12 months—aye, and this one will be swept away sooner even than that.

Miss BONDFIELD: I am sure the House has enjoyed the spectacle of the hon. and gallant Gentleman enjoying his flight of imagination. Let me conic back to a few plain facts. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred particularly, and at very great length, to the question of the actuary's report. On not one, but on several occasions this report—I am referring to the Memorandum on the financial effect of certain Amendments—has been misquoted in a way that it is very difficult to understand. The basis of the figures supplied to the actuary is perfectly well known to hon. Members opposite. The actuary is presented with what the Ministry of Labour regards as a possible figure at which the unemployment register may keep. Every successive Government has had to make a guess at what that figure is likely to be. No one could possibly tell beforehand with exactitude the average for the next 12 months, but I happen to have the figures of what the averages have been and how they have been dealt with in the financial estimates of the late Government. I want to give two groups of figures, because really they are an effective reply to the criticism we have just heard, the total figures I have here for a very long period showing the live register in relation to the debt. I only propose to take comparable figures. On 31st December, 1927, the live register stood at 1,336,303 persons. The figure for 30th June, 1928, ran down to 1,192,564. On 31st December, 1928, it rose again to 1,520,730. In June, 1929, it went down again to 1,117,800. On 30th November, 1929, it rose again to 1,285,500. Undoubtedly there will be a further increase but it has not yet reached within measurable distance of the 1,520,000 which were the figures at the end of last year.
Let us compare that with the financial provision that the last Government made to meet a situation like that. After the 1925 Act the balancing point of the fund was 1,200,000. By that I
mean the measure of provision made to meet the possible average register. The Economy Act of 1926 left a balancing point of 1,050,000. After the Act of 1927 the balancing point had dropped to 1,000,000, and that was the figure at which it remained when I came into office, a balancing point of 1,000,000 in a year when the December figure went up to 1,500,000. The inevitable result of arranging the finances at that balancing point was to increase the deficit of the fund, and they did so increase that deficit year by year. I have gone into the matter of the 1926 deficit referred to by an hon. Member on the back benches. We analysed that in 1926, and allowing that the dispute of that year was entirely responsible for the deficit it still leaves—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I was assuming, I do not admit it; we will assume that for the moment. Making the whole allowance for the total cost of that, had the finances of the fund remained as they were in 1924, and had they not. been interfered with, by the subsequent can-Se to which I have just referred, the deficit on the fund to-day would have been £20,000,000 and not £38,000,000. The balancing point of the July, 1929, Act, which went through the House with general consent, was raised from 1,000,000 to 1,090,000, but I informed the House at the time that this was merely a measure of protection to make quite certain that we should not overstep the £40,000,000 debt which was the limit up to the end of December.
It was a precautionary measure, and we informed the House at that time that it was obviously not enough to carry us over the financial year; that we should have to conic before the House with fresh proposals. When the present Bill passes, the balancing point of the fund will have been raised to 1,160,000, 160,000 mare than the balancing point when I came into office. The fund has been relieved of all liability for the transitional payments. The transitional payments will be made from the direct Treasury grant to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred. I wish to point out to the House, and I think it is most essential that the House should realise the importance of this provision in the Bill. For the first time since the transitional idea was introduced in the 1927 Bill, for the first time since the
decision was made clear with regard to the 30 stamp boundary line, an attempt is being made to restrict payments from that fund to that boundary line. We are saying that there will be debited against the fund only those charges for persons who have got the 30 weeks working period, and for the first time we have been able to present to the House a statement showing exactly what is that proportion of lives unable owing to the present economic conditions to get 15 weeks' work in a year. We shall be able to see the extent of the employability in that group. I would beg the House to remember this side of the question, that it is an infinitely sounder balance sheet than any other balance sheet on this subject for the last five years. I beg of the House to realise that what is in the Bill is only part of the operation which is now going on. Hon. Members have referred to Clause 4. When I introduced my original Clause 4, I said quite frankly to the House that I was not satisfied with the wording, and that I had done my best to construe into the Clause what I believed was possible, and what I thought would have the result of doing away with the not genuinely seeking work hardship, against which the whole House protested with such indignation. I am not ashamed of the sentence which I used on that occasion and I am glad that I used it. It was, that I desired to commit this Clause to the collective wisdom of the House.
I meant that sincerely and without any reserve whatever. I was not satisfied with the Clause and I told the House so. I told the House of the difficulties and the House has given me the benefit of its advice. I want to promise the House that as far as the Department is concerned it will take this Clause in the spirit in which the House passes it and will endeavour to apply it to restore what has been allowed to fall into disuse. Perhaps the word "disuse" is a wrong one to use, and I will say that it will be our endeavour to restore what has been overlaid by the operation of paying out benefit, namely, the work-finding side of the machine. That side has been buried. This Clause will give an impetus to that machinery. We will endeavour at least to restore the original function of the Exchanges, to ensure that
the function of the Exchanges shall be the provision of work, canvassing for work, which was originally intended to be their purpose when the Act of 1909 was passed.
The only other point is the question of the spirit of insurance, which has been referred to on more than one occasion. I want to echo what some hon. Members have said. I do believe that in normal circumstances it will be possible to take care of that group which we call the unemployed by means of the insurance principle and by means of contributions to the Fund; but we are still in the backwash of a terrible catastrophe. We are still in the throes of the transitional period in our industrial life. We have to-day an industrial revolution going on; a revolution of new forms; new conditions, which are taking away from millions of men the sort of hereditary channel through which they normally got their work. These have been swept away by changes over which no party, no political ideas have had the slightest control. Great economic forces, the development of science, the development of new ideas applied to industry in other parts of the world have to some extent interfered with our unchallenged position in the international world of trade and commerce. To-day this country is facing a crisis in which its future will depend upon the degree to which we have co-operation on the right lines, and in getting employer and employed working together. Are the employers blameless for the mess in which we find ourselves? Have the employers done all that they could to try and bring us round the corner as quickly as possible, instead of wasting time in squabbles between themselves all over old-fashioned shibboleths which are out of date. I ask the House to realise that in this business of trying to develop our economic system there is going to be tragedy on the part of whole generations of men who have spent their lives in industry, who have helped to build up the fortunes of the last generation. These men are amongst the most terrible tragedies which confront us; the most pathetic spectacles. Employers do not want to employ them. They do not want to go to the work-house; they hate the workhouse, and it is the business of this House to try to help them to maintain their self-respect
by coming to their assistance in the way that we are doing in this Bill.
I ask the House to give me the Third Reading of this Bill. I ask the House to realise that in what I have said I am quite sincere. I ask those representatives for Divisions in areas where the distress black spots are, where the festering sores are most manifest, to help us in reorganising the Exchange system in those areas, to try to get co-operation

between the employers, the workers, the three-fold contributors. I have faith to believe that we can make this scheme work to the advantage of the whole community.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 199.

Division No. 105.]
AYES.
[11.31 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Freeman, Peter
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Longbottom, A. W.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Longden, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Alpass, J. H.
Gibbins, Joseph
Lunn, William


Ammon, Charles George
Gill, T. H.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Angell, Norman
Gillett, George M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Arnott, John
Glassey, A. E.
McElwee, A.


Aske, Sir Robert
Gosling, Harry
McEntee, V. L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gossling, A. G.
McKinlay, A.


Ayles, Walter
Gould, F.
MacLaren, Andrew


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Granville, E.
McShane, John James


Barnes, Alfred John
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Grenfell, D, R. (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bellamy, Albert
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mansfield, W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marcus, M.


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Groves, Thomas E.
Markham, S. F.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Marley, J.


Benson, G.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Matters, L. W.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Melville, Sir James


Birkett, W. Norman
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Messer, Fred


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hardie, George D.
Middleton, G.


Bowen, J. W.
Harris, Percy A.
Millar, J. D.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mills, J. E.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Milner, J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Haycock, A. W.
Montague, Frederick


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bromley, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Morley, Ralph


Brothers, M.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mort, D. L.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, W. W. (Mlddx., Enfield)
Moses, J. J. H.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Herriotts, J.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Burgess, F. G.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hoffman, P. C.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Hollins, A.
Murnin, Hugh


Cameron, A. G.
Hopkin, Daniel
Nathan, Major H. L.


Cape, Thomas
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Naylor, T. E.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Horrabin, J, F.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Chater, Daniel
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Oldfield, J. R.


Church, Major A. G.
Isaacs, George
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Clarke, J. S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Compton, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas
Palin, John Henry


Daggar, George
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Paling, Wilfrid


Dallas, George
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Palmer, E. T.


Dalton, Hugh
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Perry, S. F.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kelly, W. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Day, Harry
Kennedy, Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kinley, J.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Devlin, Joseph
Lang, Gordon
Ponsonby, Arthur


Dickson, T.
Lathan, G.
Potts, John S.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Price, M. P.


Dukes, C.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Pybus, Percy John


Duncan, Charles
Lawrence, Susan
Quibell, D. J. K.


Ede, James Chuter
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Edge, Sir William
Lawson, John James
Rathbone, Eleanor


Edmunds, J. E.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Raynes, W. R.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Leach, W.
Richards, R.


Egan, W. H.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Elmley, Viscount
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lees, J.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ritson, J.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Vaughan, D. J.


Romeril, H. G.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Viant, S. P.


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Walker, J.


Rowson, Guy
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wallace, H. W.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watkins, F. C.


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Sorensen, R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Sanders, W. S.
Spero, Dr. G. E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Sandham, E.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Sawyer, G. F.
Stephen, Campbell
West, F. R.


Scrymgeour, E.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Westwood, Joseph


Scurr, John
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Sexton, James
Strauss, G. R.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Sullivan, J.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sherwood, G. H.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shield, George William
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shillaker, J. F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Shinwell, E.
Thurtle, Ernest
Wise, E. F.


Simmons, C. J.
Tillett, Ben
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wright, W. (Ruthergien)


Sinkinson, George
Tout, W. J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sitch, Charles H.
Townend, A. E.



Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Turner, B.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Albery, Irving James
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H
Knox, Sir Alfred


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Astor, Viscountess
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Atkinson, C.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Long, Major Eric


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lymington, Viscount


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dixey, A. C.
Macquisten, F. A.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Balniel, Lord
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Beaumont M. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Berry, Sir George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Meller, R. J.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Ferguson, Sir John
Mond, Hon. Henry


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fermoy, Lord
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Morrison, W, S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Boyce, H. L.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Muirhead, A. J.


Bracken, B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Briscoe, Richard Georqe
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Brown. Briq.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Ncwb'y)
Grace, John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Penny, Sir George


Butler, R. A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cadogan. Major Hon. Edward
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Carver, Major W. H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Purbrick, R.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ramsbotham, H.


Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Remer, John R.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Christie, J. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hurd, Percy A
Salmon, Major I.


Colville, Major D. J.
Iveagh, Countess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cranbourne, Viscount
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.




Savery, S. S.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Skelton, A. N.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Smith, Louis w. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Tinne, J. A.
Winter-ton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Smithers, Waldron
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Womersley, W. J.


Somerset, Thomas
Turton, Robert Hugh
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Ward, Lieut. Col. Sir A. Lambert



Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stanley, Maj. Hon. O, (W'morland)
Warrender, Sir Victor
Commander Sir B. Eyres Monsell and Major Sir George Hennessy.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1929.

CLASS V.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Exchequer Contribution to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Education Authorities, and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges, and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Transference of Work-people and their Families within Great Britain and Oversea; and sundry services, including services arising out of the War.

Miss BONDFIELD: The Estimate which I am now asking the Committee to pass arises out of the Unemployment Insurance Act of July. The principle of that Measure is what we know as the principle of "the equal thirds" and it was accepted on Second Reading and Third Reading without a Division. I may also remind the Committee that the principle of the Measure was that laid down in the Blanesburgh Report—the part of the Report which the last Government did not accept, although they accepted certain other parts of it. This Estimate is made out as from the beginning of the financial year 1929. The original sum voted under this particular sub-head was £11,990,000 and this revised Estimate brings the total up to £15,490,000, by the addition of £3,500,000. We shall require another Supplementary
Estimate in connection with the Bill the Third Reading of which we have just passed, but the second part of the Estimate will have to be taken in the new year when the House reassembles. This is a very clear, small, precise point.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I timed the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour, and she has been exactly one minute and a half in proposing to the Committee, at a quarter to 12, a Vote of £3,500,000. I put it to the Committee that that is not the spirit in which we expect even a Socialist Government to deal with the national finances. We have seen during the last week very rapid increases in the Estimates for unemployment under the Bill to which we have just given the Third Reading, but in spite of it being a comparatively agreed point that the Insurance Fund should be made as solvent as possible, I think it is treating the Committee with scant courtesy and the finances of the country with absolute negligence on the part of the right hon. Lady to have the audacity to come at this hour of the night and ask us to vote a sum of £3,500,000 without any explanation at all. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give us something far more adequate in the way of an explanation. The only thing that the right hon. Lady said was that this embodies the Estimate for the Bill which was before the House in July, but the circumstances have changed since then, and there are a great many questions with regard to the fund about which explanations are very much called for. Since then we have had the appearance of new Ministers on the Front Bench who have been instrumental in raising the cost of the Unemployment Fund for the future, and if we look back to the Debate which took place on 11th July we find that the right hon. Lady admitted in her Third Reading speech that at that time or thereabouts—I could
not quite catch the date, but it was some time in June of 1929; I think it was the date upon which the original Money Resolution for the Unemployment Insurance (No. 1) Bill was passed—the actual number of unemployed at that time on the live register was 1,117,800. That shows how circumstances have changed since then, because the figures to-day, while those were an increase on the number when the right hon. Lady took over her present portfolio, are far worse, and it is for her or someone else on the Treasury Bench to explain exactly the state of the fund.
At the moment, as the right hon. Lady has pointed out, the additional provision which is due to the change in number, by which the Exchequer contribution was one-half of that of the employers and the employed, is £3,500,000. Is that adequate, in view of the great increase in unemployment that has been progressively going on since the Money Resolution upon which that Bill was based passed through a Committee of this House? [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite seem to think there is something funny about that. Their party, which professes to be able to cure all our ills, has done nothing. It has to be borne in mind that the unemployment figures are going up and that must rapidly alter the basis of the fifty-fifty contribution which the Treasury makes to the Insurance Fund. The efforts of the Lord Privy Seal by no means equalise the amount by which the number on the live register has gone up. It would nut be in order now to anticipate Friday's Debate, but, if you examine the Lord Privy Seal's statement as to the schemes which he has in mind, you will find that the first item of work represents 84,000 man-years, the second, 4,000 man-years, and the third 1,300 man-years. That totals less than 90,000 man-years. I should like an explanation of how this figure of 90,000 is to be correlated to the increase of something like 200,000 in the numbers on the live register, because, automatically, as the live register increases, so does the drain upon the Exchequer on account of the money which is poured into the Insurance Fund to make it solvent.
A few minutes ago the right hon. Lady went into the question of the position of the live register at various recent dates
and the balancing point of the fund. On 31st December, 1927, the live register was 1,336,333 persons. At the end of June, 1928, that figure had dropped to 1,192,564. In December the figure rose again. The rise was excessive owing to the very bad climatic conditions, and by last Christmas the figure was 1,520,730. Then we had a drop, and at the beginning of June, when the late Government left office, it was somewhere about 1,100,000. The figure has ever since been on the upward curve. By the end of June it had risen to 1,117,600, and on 30th November it had reached 1,285,500. At this moment, it has, we are very sorry to see from the records of her Department, touched the 1,300,000 line. The point is: what should the figure be which requires a State contribution of £3,500,000? When the Bill, embodying the new arrangement, was passing through the House and the right hon. Lady made her speech in July, on the estimate that something like £3,500,000 was going to be required, did she anticipate that by this date the figure of the live register would be anything like 1,300,000? In the speeches made by hon. Members on the other side during that Debate, it was stressed that the figure then was somewhere about 1,115,000. The right hon. Lady went on to say that after the 1925 Act the balancing point was 1,200,000, but that after the 1926 Act it was reduced to 1,050,000. I take it that the balancing point means the point at which, other things being equal, the fund does not increase its debt. By the end of 1927, the right hon. Lady told us, the figure was 1,000,000, and that automatically reduced the deficit. At the end of July this year, she thought the balancing point was 1,090,000. These figures are extremely confusing, even to those best informed on the subject. If the right hon. Lady admits that the balancing figure of the fund should be 1,090,000, I should like some information of what the position of the fund will be when the actual figure on the live register is over 1,300,000, Which is a considerable increase on what she has admitted is the balancing point of the fund.
I take it that the estimate must he wrong. She has said that she will in due course have to introduce a second estimate. I agree that, in the disastrous conduct of affairs by the present Government, some more money will be required
for the fund before this Bill becomes an Act, because nothing is changed so far as the fund is concerned until the Bill becomes an Act, and it will not become an Act before March, 1930. At the moment, what is the position of the fund? Does this £3,500,000, which the right hon. Lady thought was required in June and July to balance the 1,090,000 on the live register, anything like make up the debt which she has increased by a progressive gradual rate? The right hon. Lady has not expatiated on that point, and I hope that she will ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to explain some of these riddles.
12 M.
When the number on the live register was 7,200,000, as I understand from her speeches, the income of the fund was £43,000,000. What will be the income of the fund when the live register is some-thing like 1,300,000? The right hon. Lady and her friends are constantly saying that they found the fund bankrupt, and that it has only been by their tremendous endeavours that they have been able to bring some sort of sanity into this business. Those on this side who have followed the Debates on this Bill, and have studded the state of the fund from time to time, cannot accept the accusation that it is entirely the fault of the Conservative party that the fund has been so near bankruptcy. I should like to remind the right hon. Lady that the great trouble as regards the Unemployment Insurance Fund arose from the fact that, if you take the debt of that fund on, 31st March, 1926, it was £7,175,000, That was not a very excessive figure and everybody who has had anything to do with the Unemployed Insurance Fund has always understood that when you are considering the state of that fund you have to take it for a period of years. It is not the slightest use taking it for a short period, because it does not balance. It has always been held by those who have studied insurance that you must take a period of years. [Interruption]. I do not see why hon. Members opposite who are not prepared to give an exposition of this subject, which I admit is extremely difficult and which I am trying to explain in the absence of any explanation from the Minister, should interrupt me. After all, the Minister of Labour is paid a salary and it is her duty to explain this Measure to the House.
I was using an argument relating to the bankruptcy of the fund. I was giving, as an example, the fact that on the 31st of March, 1926, the deficit on the fund stood at £7,170,000, and at the end of that year it had risen to £22,640,000. This shows that there was an increase in the debt during 1926 of 215 per cent., and that was entirely due to the trouble which was started by the general strike. [Interruption]. We want to know something about the state of the fund at the time that I have mentioned and at the time of the introduction of the No. 1 Bill. We have had a series of Unemployment Bills, and there have been changes in the proportion of the Exchequer contribution to the fund, but there has also been an increase in the administrative expenditure which is likely to be increased in the near future with regard to training centres. That would affect automatically the amount of money required to save the fund from bankruptcy. The Minister of Labour is anxious to save the fund from being closed until there is a further change in its financial structure. The further Exchequer contributions which are going into the Unemployment Insurance Fund deal with the Acts which are already on the Statute Book, and they have nothing whatever to do with the Bill which we have just read the Third time.
The right hon. Lady is still faced with great administrative difficulties in regard to the "not genuinely seeking work" Clause. We used to hear a good deal about the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act under the last Government, and we want to know, if there was administrative persecution under the last Administration, whether there has been any great relaxation of inquiries to find out whether certain individuals are genuinely seeking work. The more you relax the administrative provisions as administered by the Minister of Labour the more your payments automatically increase, and the more the number of unemployed will increase and automatically there will be a greater call on the Exchequer on the fifty-fifty basis. I should like the Minister of Labour to give us some further information regarding that aspect of the question. Will she tell us whether this is merely a bookkeeping entry. [Interruption.]

Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. I should like to ask if hon. Mem-
bers are in order in attempting to shout down my hon. and gallant Friend by callous laughter?

Mr. MALONE: Has not the speech of the hon. and gallant Member so far been an argument in favour of capital punishment?

Major COLFOX: Is it not possible for you, Mr. Chairman, to ask hon. Members opposite to abate their animal noises and to give a little more consideration to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) who is dealing with a very complicated subject.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox) rose to put a point of Order, and he must stick to that point. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House not to make so much noise.

Mr. BEAUMONT: May we have a ruling on the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone)?

The CHAIRMAN: I should like to call the attention of those hon. Members who are sitting on the cross-benches, that they are outside the House, and therefore, must keep silence.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I regret sincerely that any anxiety should be caused by the remarks which I am endeavouring to place before the Committee, but the difficulty of carrying on a debate on this important subject is, after all, one against which we protested at a quarter to Four in the Division Lobby when the Prime Minister moved that this Estimate should be taken after the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: That point was settled by the Division which took place at a quarter to Four.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It has added to the difficulties, because we are now discussing the payment of £3,500,000 out of the Exchequer at a time of night when, judging from the interruptions, it is outside, I will not say the competence, but the wish of hon. Members to discuss it at all. It shows, on the part of certain hon. Members, a cynical disregard of questions of national finance and a
total lack of interest in the position of the live register as we find it to-day. I would put my question to the right hon. Lady, though I know that she will not be able to answer it, because I have observed that, although it is a somewhat technical and difficult question—that is not my fault—she has omitted to take a single note. This large sum of money is going to make this year's contribution of the State to the Unemployment Insurance Fund a sum roughly equal to that which the State spent on education in the last year before the War, and before the Committee finally pass it they want to know from the right hon. Lady or from the representative of the Treasury how this amount squares with the Minister's forecast in June, when the number of unemployed was about 200,000 less than it is now. We want to know what the state of the fund is now, how much of this £3,500,000 is being taken for administrative services, and how much for the educational services which have been forecast during the last few weeks; and also whether it is really a cash transaction, or merely a bookkeeping entry on the part of the Treasury. If the right hon. Lady or any of her Friends will be so good as to answer these questions fairly rapidly, I am sure it will help the business.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL - THOMSON: I desire to put two or three quite simple questions to the Minister, because I think that hon. Members, in whatever part of the Committee they may sit, are really agreed that certain circumstances have changed since July, and the right hon. Lady cannot dismiss the matter in the very few words that she thought it necessary to say. As I understand it, in July the balancing figure was 1,090,000, and the right hon. Lady's view then was that the money which she then obtained would he enough to last till the end of the year. Now we find ourselves faced with a state of things in which the number on the live register is slightly over 1,300,000, and we are told that this sum of £3,500,000 is going to be sufficient to carry on at least till February. It is manifest that the second Supplementary Estimate which the right hon. Lady has in mind cannot be brought before the Committee until the last week in January. How are these two facts reconciled? No doubt there is an explanation, and I think we ought to have it. My
second question is the one that was put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank), namely, what is the state of the fund at the present moment? In July there were unexpired borrowing powers, if I remember rightly, of something like £3,750,000. What is the state of the fund at the present moment, and how long will it be possible, with this £3,500,000 to carry on before the fund reaches the point of exhaustion? My third question, which cam be answered equally shortly, is what, at that date of expiry, is the estimate of the number of unemployed on the live register? The Government must have a figure to which they are working, and I think we are entitled to know what it is.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £10.
Several questions of great interest to the Committee have been asked on this Vote, and I move this reduction in order to provide an occasion for the Minister to make a reply. There are three points which I think ought always to be asked about on every Supplementary Estimate for a substantial amount, and they ought to be asked about all the more when the Estimate is introduced at so late an hour as this, because no hour is too late for the Committee to do its characteristic duty in dealing with an Estimate for such a substantial amount as this. The first point is that a comment ought always to be made when a considerable Supplementary Estimate is introduced not at the earliest possible opportunity after it has become inevitable that there should be such an Estimate. There are very good reasons for that in the financial procedure of the House—reasons of common sense. As soon as the House knows that it is going to have to vote more money, it ought to be enabled by the Government to proceed without any delay to ascertain precisely what the amount is, and to deal with it. If it does not do so, it may be asked to incur other financial obligations without knowing what its full financial obligations for the year may be; in other words, it may be asked to incur financial obligations without really knowing whether the national finances are in a position to meet them or not. That is precisely what has occurred this year. On many repeated occasions we have
been asked by the Government in the course of discussion to provide fresh money without being told precisely what were our obligations under the Acts of last Session. The Act now in question was passed in July, and a Supplementary Estimate is not introduced until now, towards the end of the year; and it seems to me that there is a clear case, subject to what explanation may be given by the right hon. Lady or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as to the reason for what seems to be the long delay in the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate.
The second paint is one to which I think attention ought always to be called when a Supplementary Estimate is for a substantial amount. Of course it would not apply to mere token Estimates, but when the Supplementary Estimate is for so substantial an amount as £3,500,000. I think the point ought to be taken of its relation to the general financial scheme for the year. Where are the funds for the additional expenditure to be found? If this were a year in which there was any certainty of a surplus at the end of the financial year, we might confront this additional Vote with more equanimity; but in such a year as this, all the hall-marks of which indicate the probability of a deficit, it is our duty on this occasion to call attention to the fact that we are probably enlarging a probable deficit at the end of the year. So that we are to-night drawing a draft upon the national Sinking Fund. In other words, we are, drawing a draft upon the national credit. That is a very serious thing to do. If the Committee resolve to do it, then it must be done, but let us at least beware of what we are doing. The third point which, I think, ought always to be taken into account arises when a Supplementary Estimate is not only substantial, but is continual; that is, when it commits us to expenditure not only for this year but for years to come. The other point is a straight and simple one. We ought to require, and are entitled to require, from the Front Bench a precise statement as to what are the future obligations which will be incurred owing to our embarking upon this fresh scheme of expenditure. Let me add that question to the very proper and interesting questions already asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough
(Captain Crookshank), and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson). The last question I would ask is: What is the precise extent of the obligations which will follow upon this obligation in the coming financial year?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who first rose to speak on this Vote, dealt with a number of points affecting this question. He did not put them in the same precise form as did the two speakers who followed him, and, therefore, without any discourtesy to him, I think that, if I answer succinctly the six questions which have been put to me, I shall answer his questions at the same time. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), put to me three questions. The first of these was: Why was this Supplementary Estimate not introduced earlier? The Bill was carried in July, and he suggested that the Supplementary Estimate ought, in order to conform to the customary practice, to have been introduced as soon after that as practicable.

Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFT: And at a reasonable time of the day.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Bill was carried into taw in July, enabling the Government to base their expenditure for the year, not upon the £12,000,000 figure, but upon the £15,500,000 figure—I using round sums—in accordance with the provisions of the Act. But it did not find the additional money and the additional money was not required until the nine months had elapsed. No additional money has yet been wanted. The money which was originally provided —the £12,000,000—was employed to carry the Exchequer contribution up to the end of the calendar year, but not till the end of the financial year. The new money —the £3,500,000—is required to enable the Exchequer contribution to be paid for the remainder of the financial year. Therefore there was no need to ask for the Supplemenary Estimate until now The second point raised by the right hon. Member was that, owing to the
passage of the Act and this Supplementary Estimate,, there will have to be borrowed money, and therefore the finances of the country will be in a worse position than they would have been if what was in existence before had been allowed to continue.

Sir H. YOUNG: I referred only to the probability.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am endeavouring to put the case as I understood the right hon. Member to put it, that there is no probability of a margin, a balance in the Exchequer position at the end of the year; and therefore the passage of the Act and the carrying of it out by means of this Supplementary Estimate will involve the borrowing in all probability in order to make ends meet. The fact is that this proposal does not increase the amount to be borrowed. It only alters the form. Under the proposals of the late Government, there was a debt on the Unemployment Fund. The present Government decided that that was an unsatisfactory proceeding and that the money ought to be paid directly from the Exchequer. Therefore, there is no larger debt incurred under the scheme of the present Government than would have occurred if the method adopted by the late Government had continued all all through the financial year. The debt is simply in one account instead of in another account, and, if the proposal of the present Government had not been carried out, there would have had to be precisely the same borrowing as there will be under the present scheme, because the late Government had allowed the Fund to get very seriously into debt. I am not sure that I understood the third point. The right hon. Gentleman said, so far as I could make out, that there was something we had not told to the Committee as to what were the commitments under the present Government. The only point that is relevant to the present discussion is the question of the commitments involved by this Supplementary Estimate, following upon the Act which was passed in July. I should have thought that the position was clear. Whereas before the Act the Government contribution was less than one-third, under the Act passed in July the Government contribution is brought up to one equal third. Those commitments
continue for the current year and next year, and, unless they are repealed, in succeeding years, I think that answers the points put by the right hon. Gentleman.
I will now deal with the three questions put by the preceding speaker. He asked: What was the effect of the Act of July in changing the point at which the fund balanced? The answer was given by the Minister of Labour in her speech on the Third Reading of the Bill. It raised it from 1,000,000 to 1,090,000. Then he asked: What was the live register on 30th November, 1929? The answer to that is 1,285,000, and the debt at that time was £37,570,000. Then he asked: How long is it anticipated that the fund will hold out even on the assumption of the £3,500,000 that we are voting? The answer to that is, towards the end of February. On the assumption that the figure on the live register remains at about what it is at the present time, well on into February.

Sir H. CROFT: Did not the right hon. Lady say that it was likely to increase?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That really is not the point. We cannot judge what the amount on the live register will be in a little while. The position is this, that if the live register remains at about what it is, this Vote will enable the fund to carry on until about the end of February. A corollary is that, if the live register is more, the fund will not last quite so long. But it will last quite long enough to endure into that part of the Session which begins in January. Unless, however, there is a very considerable fall in the live register, it will not last until the end of the financial year. That is why the Minister of Labour made it clear that there would be need for a further Supplementary Estimate. That Supplementary Estimate will be required and will put into force figures which are authorised, so far as the State is concerned, by the Bill to which a Third Reading was given by the House to-night.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Gentleman is now saying that there will have to be another Supplementary Estimate, quite apart from the Bill which we have passed to-night.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No; the Bill that we have passed empowers the expenditure of further money, and a
Supplementary Estimate embodying the financial aspect of that will be introduced into this House when it meets in January, and will have to be put through before the end of the financial year.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not really apprehending what the hon. Gentleman says. If I understand him rightly, if the liabilities remain as they were, the money which we are now providing would run out about the end of February. If the live register grows, it will run out sooner. He went on to point out that the Minister of Labour said that we should have a further Supplementary Estimate before the end of the financial year. If I understand him rightly, that Supplementary Estimate will be quite apart from the Bill which we have just passed, and that I believe to be the case.

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The right hon. Gentleman is partly right and partly incorrect. The position is that the Act passed in July was not in any sense an estimate of what would be required for the whole of the financial year.
The Act was simply to provide for the principle of one-third, a principle which the Government considered was sound and should be adopted, and I think the confusion arises in the right hon. Gentleman's mind through the provision of the calendar year and the financial year. The Minister of Labour in July said that the additional figure that was being passed in that Act would enable the fund to remain solvent up to the end of the calendar year. It was not an estimate of what would be required to enable the fund to run up to the end of the financial year. It was simply a desire to embody the principle of an equal one-third, and it was computed that that would carry us at least to the end of the calendar year. As the figures have developed, it is clear now that, apart from this Bill, this Supplementary Estimate will probably not enable the fund to run to the end of the financial year, but it is only probable. It entirely depends on what the figures turn out to be. If unemployment were seriously diminished, it might run us up to the end of the financial year. If the figures, however, are to remain as they are, the Vote will take us somewhere towards the end of February, but, if they seriously increase, it will not be as far as that. That we
will see as the time comes. In any case, a Supplementary Estimate will be required to embody what is necessary under the Bill which has got a Third Reading to-night. It is a, rather difficult point, but I think I have answered the questions put to me.

Commander WILLIAMS: It is only right that we should have a rather clearer statement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) raised three very definite points. The hon. Gentleman opposite has said that this new Estimate is only brought in now, because the money is only just needed. I have heard remarkable statements from the Front Bench opposite, but I never expected to hear a representative of the Treasury coming down and saying openly that we as a country do not finance our expenditure in the main every year, but have to come down from time to time with Supplementary Estimates of this kind. You might just as well lay it down as clearly a principle of national finance that you should have

half or quarter yearly Budgets. It is clearly wrong to have Estimates of this kind coming on suddenly at this time. With regard to the second point, the Financial Secretary said that as far as this Estimate was concerned, it was not an increase, but rather a balance from one side to the other; there was a debt on the fund, and now it was balanced by a direct payment. If it is not an increase, what does the statement mean at the end, that you are raising to one-half the total contributions I That statement clearly disproves that there is no increase. There was a great deal in the statement made earlier in the evening that this is an entirely novel Estimate. There is an increase which is far higher than the taxpayer ought to be called upon to pay, and I hope that we as a party will divide against the Vote.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,499,990, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 199.

Division No. 106.]
AYES.
[12.41 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Albery, Irving James
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Beaumont, M. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Hartington, Marquess of
Savery, S. S.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henrey)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Boyce, H. L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R J.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hudson,Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somervllle, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Lleweilln, Major J. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lymington, Viscount
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Colman, N. C. D.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Colville, Major D. J.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornscy)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cranbourne, Viscount
Mond, Hon. Henry
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wells, Sydney R.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Womersley, W. J.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Muirhead, A. J.



Edmondson. Major A. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Purbrick, R.
Mr. Charles Williams and Captain Crookshank.


Ferguson, Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.



Fison, F. G. Clavering
Remer, John R.



NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barnes, Alfred John
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Brockway, A. Fenner


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craile M.
Bellamy, Albert
Bromfield, William


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hilsbro')
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)


Alpass, J. H.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Brown, Ernest (Leih)


Angell, Norman
Benson, G.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Arnott, John
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Burgess, F. G.


Aske, Sir Robert
Bevan, Aneuri (Ebbw Vale)
Burgln, Dr. E. L.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Blrkett, W. Norman
Caine, Derwent Hall-


Cameron, A. G.
Kinley, J.
Fichardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lang, Gordon
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Charleton, H. C.
Lathan, G.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Chater, Daniel
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Ritson, J.


Church, Major A. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Romeril, H. G.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Daggar, George
Leach, W.
Rowson, Guy


Dallas, George
Lees, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dalton, Hugh
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sanders, W. S.


Dickson, T.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sandham, E.


Dukes, C.
Longden, F.
Sawyer, G. F.


Duncan, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Scrymgeour, E.


Ede, James Chuter
McElwee, A.
Scurr, John


Edmunds, i. E.
McEntee, V. L.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Uedwellty)
McKinlay, A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacLaren, Andrew
Shield, George William


Egan, W. H.
McShane, John James
Shillaker, J. F.


Elmley, Viscount
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sinkinson, George


Foot, Isaac
Mansfield, W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marcus, M.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marley, J.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gibbins, Joseph
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gill, T. H.
Maxton, James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Glassey, A. E.
Melville, Sir James
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gossling, A. G.
Messer, Fred
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gould, F.
Mills, J. E.
Sorensen, R.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Milner, J.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Granted, D. R. (Glamorgan).
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Stephen, Campbell


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)
Morley, Ralph
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Strauss, G. R.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mort, D. L.
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Moses, J. J. H.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Tinker, John Joseph


Hardie, George D.
Murnin, Hugh
Tout, W. J.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nathan, Ma|or H. L.
Townend, A. E.


Haycock, A. W.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Turner, B.


Hayday, Arthur
Oldfield, J. R.
Vaughan, D. J.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wallace, H. W.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Watkins, F. C.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Herriotts, J.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palin, John Henry
Wellock, Wilfred


Hollins, A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigam)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hopkin, Danfel
Perry, S. F.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Westwood, Joseph


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfieid)
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Blrm., Ladywood)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Whitetey, William (Blaydon)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Johnston, Thomas
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Price, M. P.
Wlnterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Pybus, Percy John
Wise, E. F.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Kelly, W. T.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson



Kennedy, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Wilfrid Paling.


Question put, and agreed to.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,650, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Health for Scotland, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in connection with Public Health Services, Grants in Aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service. Grants-in-Aid of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Special Services.

The SECRETARY of STATE. for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): This is a special grant for improving medical services in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and for purposes connected therewith. This was provided for in the Bill which passed through this House within the last two weeks without opposition. The additional sum is required to supplement the annual grant payable under the Highlands and Islands Medical Services Grant Act, 1913. The grant-in-aid will be paid into a separate fund called the Highlands and Islands Medical Services Fund. This fund will be subject to regulations made by the Treasury with respect to accounts, audit, and accumulations. The fund will be
administered by the Department in accordance with schemes made by the Department and with the consent of the Treasury. Expenditure out of the fund will be accounted for in full detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Any balance of the sum issued which may remain unexpended at the 31st March, 1930, will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer. We had practically every stage of this grant discussed when we had the Highlands and Islands Bill in Committee two or three weeks ago, and I do not expect we shall have opposition from any part of the Committee—at least, no opposition was made to the Bill as it made its passage through all its stages, and this is the complement to the Bill. I hope that hon. Members on all sides of the Committee are going to give us this Estimate, which I now move.

Major ELLIOT: I am sure, that, as the Secretary of State for Scotland has just said, this is a complement to the Bill; and the House of Commons is asked, of course, to pay this complement. Still, we approved of the Bill, and we approve of the Supplementary Estimate. But some of my hon. Friends have some doubts about the constitutional procedure of taking a Supplementary Estimate before the Bill to which it refers has passed through both Houses of Parliament. We might, therefore, ask for more information on the Report stage, but at the present stage of the proceedings we all desire to get the Bill through, and we wish the Bill well. We also wish the Secretary of State far Scotland the best of good fortune.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. YOUNG in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, the sum of £5,416,670 be granted to His Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. PethickLawrence.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1929.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, entitled the Local Government (County Districts, Valuation of Railways, etc.) Order (Scotland), 1929, which was presented on the 31st day of October, 1929, be approved.

1.0. a.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): By Section 76 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, it is provided that the Secretary of State for Scotland may bring the provisions of other Acts into conformity with the Act of 1929 where that, is required, provided that within three months from the date of his making such an Order he brings before this House for approval a Resolution in justification. On the 16th day of October last such an Order was laid upon the Table of this House. It has been agreed to and passed through another place, and we now asked for the formal Resolution approving of it here. The purpose of the Resolution is to permit the apportionment to the various county districts, to be formed under the Act of 1929, of the proper share of the valuation of the railway property. The late Postmaster-General the right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) has been good enough privately to suggest that in the Order laid on 16th October, the date 15th May, which has been substituted for 31st July in Section 5, is somehow or other not in order. The Resolution now, and the Statutory Rule and Order 976, in no way, as I understand it, demand the Amendment of any previous Act. It does not demand an Amendment of a single line or word in a previous Act, but simply declares that in the Resolution of this House, under the Statutory Order to be laid, any change to bring the Act of 1929 into conformity with the previous Statutes and Acts of this House, shall be made clear. That, I claim, is made clear in the Order laid on the Table of this House on 16th October, which has been formally passed in another place.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: I do not want to keep the House any time, but there is a point I would like to raise with regard to paragraph (3) of this Order. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State
laid stress on the fact that this Order was passed in another place. That seems an extraordinary argument from those benches. They sometimes say that the other place does not matter. I am afraid that the other place has not been so careful as it ought to have been in safeguarding the interests of all sections of the community in Scotland so far as this Order is concerned. I fail to see how this is not an Amendment of the Valuation and Lands Act of 1894. We have laid down certain dates. Section 2 says that the assessor is to make up the valuation roll of railways and canals annually on the 15th day of March. This says that the date 15th March is to be altered to the 31st day of May. So we have the date 15th March being altered about 10 weeks. All the dates in the Act are brought on by about 10 weeks. The Act of 1894 amended the earlier Acts of 1854, 1867 and 1887 and altered the dates then. In the previous Acts the date was 15th August, and that date was brought back until May, and now it is altered back to March. I would like to draw the attention of the House to Section 2 of the Act of 1894. The Section says that
for the purpose of the Valuation Roll to be made up by the assessor … for the year ending Whitsunday, one thousand, eight hundred and ninety-six, and subsequent years, in place of the fifteenth day of August … there shall be substituted the fifteenth day of March as the day on or before which the assessor shall inquire into and fix incumulo the yearly rent or value of all lands and heritages in Scotland belonging to or leased by each railway and canal company … and in place of the fifteenth day of May as provided in the twenty-third Section of the said first recited Act, there shall be substituted the fifteenth day of November previously as the day on or before which intimations of the desire of any water company, or gas company having any continuous lands and heritages liable to be assessed in more than one parish, county or burgh, to have such lands and heritages assessed, shall be made to the sheriff.
When the roll was made up on 15th August, they could appeal until 15th May. When the date for assessment was brought back to the middle of March, the appeal was brought hack to the previous 15th November, and now I want to draw attention to the Order. In all cases we have everything brought on by 10 weeks. If the Order was proper and looking after the interests of all, the date, 15th November, ought to have been
about 31st January. That would have given these companies a chance to apply to have their lands assessed. Why do you leave out this part and not give these people an opportunity of having their lands assessed?

Major ELLIOT: I am very glad to see that the Act of 1929 is being found useful, and, in particular, the power which was classed in England as the Henry VIII Clause and in Scotland the James VI Clause. No doubt the Lord Advocate will pick up the historical reference. On page 2 of this statutory Resolution it states that Section 5 amends the Schedule and mentions the Act of 1894. The 15th May is mentioned and also Whit Sunday. The ex-Postmaster-General has brought to my notice that, while you substitute 31st July for the first 15th May, you cannot substitute it for Section 1, for you cannot have Whit Sunday for any other day. There is a proved error and the order should be corrected. If we could have an assurance from the Under-Secretary we should be satisfied. I hear cries for the Lord Advocate. We should be greatly honoured by his intervention. But I understand he desires to reserve himself for some great occasion in which he could make his entrance in accordance with the dignity of his great office. One's maiden speech is a task difficult and delicate. I should not ask him to make his maiden speech on a subject such as this. He shows an exaggerated deference to this House in refraining from speaking on things which must be to him common-place handling. We know that Under-Secretaries for Scotland are a virile race. I have no doubt the task which has appalled the Lord Advocate will be tackled in the Under-Secretary's stride. If he says that this has been fully dealt with, I shall be content to let it drop. We all want to get to bed, but let us have a simple statement from the Under-Secretary of State when these points have been considered.

Commander WILLIAMS: I think I am entitled to have one or two points made perfectly clear. I want to know what it exactly means:
And whereas the boundaries of the County District will not be determined in time to allow the said Assessor if he includes the particulars aforesaid to prepare and complete his Valuation Roll for the year beginning on the 16th day of May, 1930.
I want, to know why this delay has been caused and who caused it. I want to know from the Under-Secretary why it is that the original date is or has been prolonged. My desire is to know whether the real reason for this delay is that the administration in Scotland is not quite as good as it might be, and may I suggest that, instead of carrying on the delay, the proper way would be to have a few thoroughly efficient and up-to-date Englishmen to carry on this work; because we do know that the Scottish, particularly at this time of night, are not a very mobile race. I wish to raise another point on the fifth line down of the second page in the "Statutory Rules and Orders," where it talks about
the Roll and the subsequent transmission of certified extracts therefrom.
I want to know who certifies these extracts. This is really a most important question, because it may have a legal significance which may quite easily affect the well-being of very many people in Scotland. For that reason, I do not think that a mere Under-Secretary should be the only person to tell us. This matter, I think, should be clearly expounded to us by the legal representative of Scotland. He is here in full, strong and robust health. There is another purely technical, legal question upon which I have not been able to find any information, and that is what is actually meant by the word "landward" in the second paragraph. It is, I presume, a purely Scottish expression, but we have never had it explained to us during the whole course of this Debate. It would be easier for us to form a proper estimate of what was the value of these Orders if these few legal definitions could be explained to us. I am sure the legal representative for Scotland is going to get up and tell us what it is all about.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The only comment make upon the hon. Member's charge of lack of mental ability is that it should be levelled at the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) so far as this Order goes. I am sure I should be nut of order if I elaborated or set out
to elaborate upon the precise meaning of the word "landward." It hardly rises upon the Motion which is before us to-night. We are asking that an Order laid on the 16th October should be formally confirmed by a Resolution of this House. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove that there is no attempt to interfere or to amend his Act of 1929 or to do anything else than to exercise the duty imposed upon us by that Act of 1929, that is, the laying of a formal Resolution on the Table of this House, and to ask this House to support it to enable the Act of 1929 to function properly. I am sure with that explanation that we shall have the unanimous vote of the House.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: Can I have a reply to the point that I put?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot speak again.

Mr. SMITH: On that point, may I ask, with the permission of the House, for a reply to perfectly specific questions? I think I am entitled to a reply by the leave of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the Under-Secretary chooses to answer, that is another matter, but he cannot repeat his speech.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, entitled the Local Government (County Districts, Valuation of Railways, etc.) Order (Scotland), 1929, which was presented on the 31st day of October, 1929, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven, of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty - two minutes after One o'clock.